Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
it is WILD to me that we only have allowlists for minting and NOT for secondary sales. that’s not how the trading of art, luxury goods, family heirlooms, homes, even surfboards works. most secondary marketplaces IRL have a curation layer to filter buyers. this is why NFT marketplaces lose volume to private txns :)
18 replies
11 recasts
93 reactions
Matthew Fox 🌐
@matthewfox
/highlight just shipped this (kind of) https://warpcast.com/rekdaus/0x1a027123 I have mixed feelings about its implementation being adjustable post mint but the idea is cool if communicated upfront But this also just exposed that any creator can rug their highlight collection anytime 🙃
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Nat Emodi
@emodi
what’s the concern?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew Fox 🌐
@matthewfox
that a creator can change this post sale and the buyer isn't made aware ahead of purchase even a flag that this is possible would be nice kinda like opensea has "metadata frozen or not" but this is far more severe imo losing the independence to sell to who ever you like for something you bought erks me
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
rekdaus
@rekdaus
makes sense - you run that risk with any NFT contract though, if you haven't checked the implementation. You run that risk with upgradeable contracts as well, which many NFT contracts are. Ours aren't uprgradeable (proxy style) b/c we wanted upgradeable behaviour to always have defined rules of engagement (modules)
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew Fox 🌐
@matthewfox
point me in the direction of the next platform doing that and I'll voice the same opinion the idea is cool - just communicate it to consumers and enforce that creators decide whether its mutable at launch or not?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nat Emodi
@emodi
a) this is a proof of concept b) we’re creator first. 99.99% of creators aren’t trying to rug their supporters / alienate their audience c) appreciate the feedback
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
