Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update ERC-7743: Move to Review #793

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Feb 9, 2025
Merged

Conversation

jamesavechives
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesavechives jamesavechives commented Dec 24, 2024

This ERC proposes a new standard for non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that supports multiple owners. The MO-NFT standard allows a single NFT to have multiple owners, reflecting the shared and distributable nature of digital assets. This model incorporates mechanisms for provider-defined transfer fees and ownership burning, enabling flexible and collaborative ownership structures. It maintains compatibility with the existing ERC-721 standard to ensure interoperability with current tools and platforms.

@eip-review-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eip-review-bot commented Dec 24, 2024

✅ All reviewers have approved.

Copy link
Contributor

@SamWilsn SamWilsn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Line 59: _owners is not a public member, so shouldn't appear in your specification section. Instead describe the externally visible behaviour without specifying any implementation details.

Line 119: You have "IERC-721". I think you mean IERC721?

@jamesavechives
Copy link
Contributor Author

Line 59: _owners is not a public member, so shouldn't appear in your specification section. Instead describe the externally visible behaviour without specifying any implementation details.

Line 119: You have "IERC-721". I think you mean IERC721?

OK, done!

@jamesavechives
Copy link
Contributor Author

jamesavechives commented Jan 9, 2025

Line 59: _owners is not a public member, so shouldn't appear in your specification section. Instead describe the externally visible behaviour without specifying any implementation details.

Line 119: You have "IERC-721". I think you mean IERC721?

image Sorry but I think it has to be kept as IERC-721, or it would not pass the EIP Wlidator bot's checking!

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

It should be `ERC721` (note the backticks) when referring to the interface, and ERC-721 when referring to the standard.

@jamesavechives
Copy link
Contributor Author

jamesavechives commented Jan 25, 2025

It should be ERC721 (note the backticks) when referring to the interface, and ERC-721 when referring to the standard.

OK, got it. I have corrected it now! Thanks @SamWilsn

@eip-review-bot eip-review-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) February 9, 2025 03:33
Copy link
Collaborator

@eip-review-bot eip-review-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

@eip-review-bot eip-review-bot merged commit 5f0558c into ethereum:master Feb 9, 2025
9 of 10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants