Grant proposal for SNIP721 work

[baedrik]

@MikeSofaer

I don’t understand the implications enough, wouldn’t the contract be there to call whenever is best?

Yes, it could be called whenever. The main difference is that if you do the randomized generation during the minting process, it is the minting contract that will pay the gas for that process. Whereas doing it during the unwrapping process would put the gas cost on the user. Granted, gas is cheap on Secret Network, but I still like the idea of reducing the gas cost for the user.

@MikeSofaer

Honestly to me it’s about whether it’s easier to keep track of the validity and version of a pack as it changes hands, after determining what’s in it, but without revealing what’s in it, and that’s probably more related to Secret than your specific work.

Yes, the capabilities of Secret Network makes it trivial to keep the information private

[can]

A couple of questions from our discussion this morning:

• Do we have any usage around cw721 (cosmwasm implementation of NFTs)? @JanSwim this is something we can look into
• How valuable do we think swapping 721s is (not 1155) cc @GhostAgent
• are there any risks of allowing owner to change metadata of the NFT? Let’s say the owner changes the IPFS content, this will change the hash/address which is stored in metadata @Meta @MikeSofaer @GhostAgent

[MikeSofaer]

I generally think your users will think of things that would never occur to you, and you shouldn’t restrict anything you don’t have to.

[baedrik]

@can

• are there any risks of allowing owner to change metadata of the NFT? Let’s say the owner changes the IPFS content, this will change the hash/address which is stored in metadata @Spidymonkey @MikeSofaer @GhostAgent

Just to clarify, I do think there should be functionality for the minter to update metadata. So if a game contract controls the stats of the NFT, it can make the changes as those stats evolve. While those changes will likely be made to the off-chain uri, if they are using something like IPFS to host the uri, they would need to change the ifps hash in the metadata.

I am curious whether there is a reason that an owner should also be able to change the metadata

[baedrik]

@MikeSofaer

I generally think your users will think of things that would never occur to you, and you shouldn’t restrict anything you don’t have to.

So do you advise that I do not implement the Seal/Reveal functionality at all and just let the contract dev (that is using the base implementation as a starting point) implement it however best fits their needs?

[MikeSofaer]

I’d say to a reference implementation, and then people can use it or not anyway, right? But don’t make it too complicated because people will do something you don’t expect.

[mohammedpatla]

Honestly, i would like the option of Private/Reveal already be ready. So that it is good to start of it with, and by default my NFT can become private or public → and the (present) owner can always have the ability to toggle this.
Not sure how you are approaching this though.