teddit

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 :)

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

Pretty sure opensea had this feature a while back where you could set allowlists for secondary. Might be wrong but swore there was something like this.

But also I think this gets into a deeper conversation about truly “decentralized” NFTs/assets when/if this becomes a thing.

Did some things in Sports. Then made some Film/TV. Followed the future early to VR/AR. And now down the 🐇🕳 

I’m not saying they have to be or don’t have to be. More of a conversation starter. 

If they aren’t and become too controlled from creator/company then what’s really the difference than owning an in game asset on Roblox or a song on iTunes.

why do NFTs/assets have to be decentralized?

current secondary market for NFTs only allows the fastest and richest buyer to win. is that really a net positive?

look at human history and the transfer of valuable assets over time. the sellers care who the buyer is.

allowlists enable invaluable ongoing curation.

That’s what I was thinking on! Is there not reserve for secondary sales as well?

You might be talking about the ‘reserve’ function?

A creator can mint their own work and set the private sale reserve for an EOA