I have tested the app and see that if you input the various parameters it will generate a json file. In my test, I skipped many of the fields and input the word “hello” for addresses, etc – the app still created a json file with the partial and invalid info. As the ARC specifies that no fields are required except the version parameter, what is the minimum requirements for a valid NFT collection?
Even if you revisit this and add validators per field, I’m struggling to see how this advances the primary issues around NFT collections which relate to verification.
You say that json info can be verified by Providers - “Providers are smart contracts that have the capability of verifying multiple wallets”
If you add 10 team members’ addresses to your json, and we assume that a provider builds the necessary infrastructure to somehow verify these team members, how does it prove the association of the team members to any pre-existing ASAs within a collection?
I understand that this ARC is just a metadata declaration, and verification is beyond the scope of the proposal, but a declaration without a verification process does not advance us to a solution.
Meanwhile, there is an alternate ARC proposal that specifies a metadata schema and a robust verification process for NFT collections – its called ARC-40.
Here is the Git
And the forum post
ARC-40: Standards and Validation Workflows for Mutable Asset Sets
ARC-40 goes far beyond ARC-53 and provides a fully integrated verification solution. The json schema within ARC-40 is precisely tailored to the needs of the verification process - these 2 components have to work together! We have already commenced building a tool to generate and verify ARC-40 NFT collections.
The fact that the community is willing to fund tooling for an ARC proposal that is not approved and does not advance us to a solution, while a far more practical solution is ignored, demonstrates the issues that we have within xGov around assessing value to the ecosystem. BTW, the ARC-40 proposal has had no feedback from the community except a single downvote from Krby.
One more thing… You have recently added this text to the ARC proposal:
“Providers that support this standard will be listed on the ARC compatibility matrices site.”
I looked for a sample ‘ARC compatibility matrices’ in other ARCs and could not find one. What is this matrix and is it intended to link to proprietary providers or is it intended to specify technical / backwards compatibilities?