ERC721 design history, categorical placement wrt ERC1410 and token economics in general


I was drawn to think of the ERC721 naming debate that William was moderating awhile back. I went to look for the history of the discussion (so as to continue my own design work) but was unable to see any trace of it in the github documentation.

I’m not used to having important and subtle information just disappear like that. I had assumed that transparency was an integral work aesthetic hence me posting my concerns here. Likewise, as I’ve been trying to cobble together an ERC721 research group and, as I will expanding the field study into ERC1410 and other design work, and, finally as this would relate to the grand possibility of employing the finding and integrating into the main-chain economics, I figure that there must be another group out there facing the inevitable challenges of adoption.

Attention: thought leaders.

How can we start to undo the damage of the NFT mentality? I mean, how fascist does it have to sound to those in the outside world?

To wit: an attachment.

It’s worth noting that this hardfork suggestion was put forth in a time of utter chaos, during the aftershock of the DAO attack. I was making the suggestion such that “we”, as a development community, could absorb the questionable use issues by using partial fungibility as a form of self-devaluation. In a sense, this would be akin to a partial burn, a moderator of reflexivity: something simple to compensate for the destructive or redundant situations during nominal network stability/growth.

In the wider sense, any currency should be able to flag itself as being, of the moment, dilutable within a much larger concentration of signals – free to be fungibly questioned, perhaps?


I found the research that I was looking for, so I’d consider 1/2 of the original issue now somewhat resolved – and categorise the problems as being outside the scope, perhaps of this community. I mean: the use of Github is itself a political issue.