Add flip for fungible tokens metadata #1087

alilloig · 2022-08-11T18:52:24Z

Description

Flip for creating a Metadata standard for fungible tokens.

For contributor use:

Targeted PR against master branch
Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
Updated relevant documentation
Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
Added appropriate labels

vercel · 2022-08-11T18:52:26Z

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated
flow-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Aug 16, 2022 at 8:51PM (UTC)

alilloig · 2022-08-11T18:56:14Z

I could really use some help with the Motivation and User Benefit writing!

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

alilloig · 2022-08-16T14:27:42Z

I'm still missing any related issues, and will much appreciate a look at Objective, Motivation & User Benefit, haven't feel specially litterateur with those

joshuahannan

Good start so far! I just have a few comments

joshuahannan · 2022-08-16T17:22:17Z

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

+
+## Objective
+
+This proposal, in a similar fashion as the NFT Metadata, will make possible to create generic solutions that will interoperate through views rather than through hard-coded types. This will allow better interoperability between fungible tokens and external applications. 


Probably include an embedded link to the NFT metadata flip and standard here

make sure to address this

A bazillion thanks for remembering this, there was a bunch of great suggestions made by @turbolent, including this point, that I thought I had merged but actually lost track of them at some commit.

joshuahannan · 2022-08-16T17:34:14Z

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

+
+## User Benefit
+
+The creation of a Metadata standard for fungible tokens will bring two major user benefits, discoverability and interoperability. It will make way easier to any FT to be presented on any app that would want to feature several FT and also will ease how those FT can be used by an user programmatically.


Suggested change

The creation of a Metadata standard for fungible tokens will bring two major user benefits, discoverability and interoperability. It will make way easier to any FT to be presented on any app that would want to feature several FT and also will ease how those FT can be used by an user programmatically.

The creation of a Metadata standard for fungible tokens will bring two major user benefits, discoverability and interoperability. It will make it way easier for any FT to be presented on any app that would want to feature several FT and also will ease how those FT can be used by a user programmatically.

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

joshuahannan · 2022-08-16T17:40:43Z

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

+    }
+```
+
+In order to be able to use the `FTDisplay` we will need to re-use or re-implement (depending on if this ends up being part of the original `MetadataViews.cdc` contract or having its own contract) the following views: `ExternalURL`, `File`, `HTTPFile`, `IPFSFile`, `Media` and `Medias`. 


I think we can import those views from the original contract. no need to re-implement them

Yeah totally agree

joshuahannan · 2022-08-16T17:42:12Z

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

+
+## Questions and Discussion Topics
+
+Main friction point will be if we want this standard to be in a new different contract of if we want it to be part of the existent `MetadataViews.cdc` contract.


I think the new views should be a new contract, but like I said above, reuse some of the primitive views.

Should we discuss this on the forum or should we start the discussion assuming that what makes more sense is to put the new views in a different contract rather than updating the NFT one?

We should definitely put the FT specific views in a new contract

so maybe we should remove that from the FLIP to avoid any confusion?

No, they should definitely stay in this FLIP because this is the FLIP that proposes them. I just mean that when we're writing the code, they should be in their own contract in the flow-ft repo instead of in the MetadataViews contract in the flow-nft repo

Sorry, I expressed myself quite poorly there. I was saying if we should remove this sentence Main friction point will be if we want this standard to be in a new different contract of if we want it to be part of the existent MetadataViews.cdc contract. from the FLIP since it seems that we all agree on creating a new contract for the new views.

oh yeah. sorry about the misunderstanding. We can remove that line

joshuahannan · 2022-08-16T17:43:00Z

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

+
+Are we missing any core views that should be mandatory from the beginning?
+
+Could there be some view, like serial, that differentiates tokens from the same `Vault` depending for instance of when they where minted? (think of different years coins with the same value) Would that make them NFT rather than FT? Would ever any developer want to do that? How could we keep track of a single balance which contains slightly different tokens? Would that introduce an unnecessary complication when transferring tokens? (of course it would). This could make sense along with the [streamlined tokens proposal new `FungibleToken.Balance` interface that exposes a `getBalance()` function rather than a field just in case the FT owner wants to compute the balance](https://forum.onflow.org/t/streamlined-token-standards-proposal/3075)


I don't think we need to worry about this now. I think if people want that kind of view, they can submit a proposal after these initial views have been accepted and deployed.

makes sense, getting rid of it!

turbolent

Good idea to add metadata support to fungible tokens, and leveraging the experience gained from adding metadata to NFTs. 👍

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

turbolent · 2022-08-16T17:47:35Z

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

+
+### Best Practices
+
+Fungible Token issuers should implement the `FTView` to achieve the as much ecosystem compatibility as possible.


See comment above and clarify if the two sub-views should be also provided.

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

…-metadata

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md

joshuahannan

I left a couple more comments. Once those are addressed, I think this can be merged and you can start working on the new contracts in the flow-ft repo!

…-metadata

alilloig · 2022-08-31T15:43:15Z

@pgebheim should I merge the FLIP here or we should only take it to the FLIPs repo???

pgebheim · 2022-08-31T16:34:22Z

Let's merge here and I'll port to the FLIPs repo

Add flip for fungible tokens metadata

9c9be62

alilloig added FLIP Flow Improvement Proposal SC-Eng Issues that we want to see surfaced in SC-Eng ZH Board labels Aug 11, 2022

Update flip number

dec50c8

alilloig requested review from aishairzay, joshuahannan, prpatel05, satyamakgec, albeethekid and bshahid331 August 11, 2022 18:54

vercel bot deployed to Preview August 11, 2022 18:57 View deployment

alilloig mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2022

Create design proposal for the FT Metadata Views onflow/flow-ft#81

Closed

pgebheim reviewed Aug 11, 2022

View reviewed changes

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bluesign reviewed Aug 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Correct typos

bc0a151

vercel bot deployed to Preview August 12, 2022 14:50 View deployment

Add motivation and user benefit

ff2e282

vercel bot deployed to Preview August 16, 2022 14:25 View deployment

joshuahannan reviewed Aug 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

turbolent reviewed Aug 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

vercel bot deployed to Preview August 16, 2022 19:24 View deployment

alilloig added 2 commits August 16, 2022 21:41

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:onflow/flow into alilloig/flip-ft…

bca282f

…-metadata

Add changes from review

16178a5

alilloig force-pushed the alilloig/flip-ft-metadata branch from a9508ce to 16178a5 Compare August 16, 2022 19:49

vercel bot deployed to Preview August 16, 2022 19:54 View deployment

vercel bot deployed to Preview August 16, 2022 20:51 View deployment

joshuahannan reviewed Aug 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

flips/20220811-fungible-tokens-metadata.md Show resolved Hide resolved

joshuahannan approved these changes Aug 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

alilloig added 2 commits August 31, 2022 16:49

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:onflow/flow into alilloig/flip-ft…

931227d

…-metadata

Apply turbolent sugestions to PR

55e7af7

alilloig force-pushed the alilloig/flip-ft-metadata branch from f64940a to 55e7af7 Compare August 31, 2022 14:58

Apply suggestions from review

7ec7809

pgebheim merged commit 924883a into master Aug 31, 2022

peterargue deleted the alilloig/flip-ft-metadata branch January 17, 2023 19:30

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add flip for fungible tokens metadata #1087

Add flip for fungible tokens metadata #1087

alilloig commented Aug 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

vercel bot commented Aug 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alilloig commented Aug 11, 2022

alilloig commented Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan left a comment

joshuahannan Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 30, 2022

alilloig Aug 31, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 16, 2022

alilloig Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 16, 2022

alilloig Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 30, 2022

alilloig Aug 31, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 31, 2022

alilloig Aug 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

joshuahannan Aug 31, 2022

joshuahannan Aug 16, 2022

alilloig Aug 16, 2022

turbolent left a comment

turbolent Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan left a comment

alilloig commented Aug 31, 2022

pgebheim commented Aug 31, 2022


		## Objective

		This proposal, in a similar fashion as the NFT Metadata, will make possible to create generic solutions that will interoperate through views rather than through hard-coded types. This will allow better interoperability between fungible tokens and external applications.


		## User Benefit

		The creation of a Metadata standard for fungible tokens will bring two major user benefits, discoverability and interoperability. It will make way easier to any FT to be presented on any app that would want to feature several FT and also will ease how those FT can be used by an user programmatically.


		## Questions and Discussion Topics

		Main friction point will be if we want this standard to be in a new different contract of if we want it to be part of the existent `MetadataViews.cdc` contract.


		Are we missing any core views that should be mandatory from the beginning?

		Could there be some view, like serial, that differentiates tokens from the same `Vault` depending for instance of when they where minted? (think of different years coins with the same value) Would that make them NFT rather than FT? Would ever any developer want to do that? How could we keep track of a single balance which contains slightly different tokens? Would that introduce an unnecessary complication when transferring tokens? (of course it would). This could make sense along with the [streamlined tokens proposal new `FungibleToken.Balance` interface that exposes a `getBalance()` function rather than a field just in case the FT owner wants to compute the balance](https://forum.onflow.org/t/streamlined-token-standards-proposal/3075)


		### Best Practices

		Fungible Token issuers should implement the `FTView` to achieve the as much ecosystem compatibility as possible.

Add flip for fungible tokens metadata #1087

Add flip for fungible tokens metadata #1087

Conversation

alilloig commented Aug 11, 2022 • edited Loading

Description

vercel bot commented Aug 11, 2022 • edited Loading

alilloig commented Aug 11, 2022

alilloig commented Aug 16, 2022

joshuahannan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alilloig Aug 31, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

turbolent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshuahannan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alilloig commented Aug 31, 2022

pgebheim commented Aug 31, 2022

alilloig commented Aug 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

vercel bot commented Aug 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

alilloig Aug 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading