You are missing the point. You claim to have provided a token bound proxy account that enables someone do anything and you limit what it does? It is great to make a test cases, but you just made a token bound proxy account for executing generic transactions with separate contracts. You don’t need to limit what you just make, that is not a standard.
Ok, so to leave a room, I think the proposal has to specify three cases where:
- wallet <> token bound contract <> another contract (proxy account and your reference implementation)
- wallet <> token bound contract
The question is, how will you securely specify second item as you referred on security concerns in your original proposal? and how will you aggregate all the other cases into one (e.g. FNFT by Revest, etc)?
Obviously the same answer from the previous quote.
ERC721A is subset of ERC721? Is it too hard to understand implementing NFT ownership of a newly created contract from create when you just coded? EIPs/ABT.sol at 39fe51429c2295692b351e4e89f7c38cc42d8ae9 · hskang9/EIPs · GitHub
Ok now put that into the proposal without saying account ambiguity. You also forgot how your registry actually verifies NFT and connected account.
No, you don’t know how ERC-1155 works. ERC-1155 can have total supply of 1, and this makes the fact that there is only one owner per token ID. Perhaps you could set total supply on 2 and ask why it does not work.
No thank you. I work on this to make sense of a proposal. I am not joining your peripheral attempt on glorifying the proposal when it is just a proxy account implementation with NFT. You have to pay me first on handling your issue. I only work for free on this after being too afraid of the world where @vbuterin says zero knowledge solves everything but cannot code one line on actually shipping the product then cashes out 350 million dollars, Do Kwon saying algo-stablecoin will solve all money out there and make hundreds of people suicide after his scam got revealed. They all boast their knowledge about crypto, but they have zero knowledge in action. Also, I think using emojis doesn’t help on showing that you are seriously thinking to pass this. Are you trying to finalize this proposal or what?
From your answers, it seems you do have knowledge in smart contracts, but it does not look like you have knowledge in action as you haven’t known the EIP-1155 can limit the supply. If your proposal’s name is Non-fungible Token Bound Accounts, you must have knowledge in action on all NFTs, including ERC-1155. Hence, you need to implement the case where EIP-1155 is used too. Otherwise, this has to be limited to ERC-721 token bound accounts.