EIP-5375 - NFT Authorship

This is the discussion thread for EIP-5375, an EIP that provides a standardized JSON field for author information, in addition to Author Consent Proofs (ACPs), which prove that an address agreed to be named as the author.
Link to the PR


It might be useful to add EIP-165 support to this EIP.

1 Like

Definitely, give us a couple days and we’ll add it!

Edit: Luca and I have discussed it and we believe that EIP-165 is not necessary, mostly due to two reasons:

  • The EIP-165 identifier is computed using contract function signatures, but EIP-5375 does not add any functions;
  • Requiring modifications to supportsInterface() would mean that all existing contracts would need to be updated.
1 Like

Moving from Draft to Review!
You can find the new PR here.

If I am understanding correctly the currently proposed standard, authorInfo assumes that the entire set of tokens within a given ERC-721-conforming contract all have the same author, which often isn’t the case.

I’d suggest that authorInfo be something that is tokenId-keyed, in the same way that token URI is.

That is, that the EIP be updated to use authorInfo(uint256 _tokenId) instead of a shared authorInfo.

authorInfo is not a method of the contract, it’s a field in the JSON document pointed by tokenURI/uri, which both take the _tokenId parameter. In this way, it’s possible to provide id-specific author info.

AH–that makes much more sense to me, my misunderstanding there.

One additional thing to clarify, am I understanding correctly that the consentInfo field entirely is optional for conformance here (e.g. it can be left out of authorInfo)?

That’s correct, the rationale is that if you only want to provide a claim of who the author is (without any proof), you can do it.

The downside is that you can basically claim anything about who the author is, but the upside is that from a UX POV, you can support EIP-5375 without forcing all users to sign EIP-712 messages. While less secure, this simplifies adoption, since NFT platforms can make ACPs optional.

In my opinion, I think ACPs will end up being like the blue checkmark on Twitter: pretty irrelevant for most people, but extremely important for “celebrities” to distinguish themselves from scammers.

Obviously, a platform can also force all users to sign ACPs, for maximum security.