Field Name : NFT Collection URL
Value statement: A lot of crypto startups have their own NFT collections closely connected to the token economy, especially P2E projects.
Definition: The link to the official project’s NFT collection on NFT marketplace (opensea.com, looksrare.org, x2y2.io, etc.).
Tooltip definition of the predicate : The link to the project’s NFT collection.
Type of value: “url”
# of accepted values: multiple
Examples of proper use :
‘CryptoUnicorns’ → ‘NFT Collection URL’ → https://opensea.io/collection/crypto-unicorns-market
‘CryptoUnicorns’ → ‘NFT Collection URL’ → https://opensea.io/LagunaGames?tab=created
Examples of inproper use : URLs for any website which is not a non-NFT marketplace
P.S. I don’t really like the offered Field Name because in the second example of proper use I provided the URL to the creator URL which can have multiple collections. Maybe it’s better to name it “NFT Marketplace URL” or reduce it to “OpenSea URL” because the vast majority of the collections are presented on the Opensea. Please suggest your variant of the field name.
P.P.S Please also suggest the Constraints. Because a lot of entities can have own NFT collection - Company, Organization, Person, Product, etc.
@norbhere On the name, I agree that NFT Marketplace URL might be best. NFT Collection is a bit confusing (to me at least) because it implies a collection itself rather than the marketplace.
I am not sure if limiting to OpenSea makes sense, but definitely interested to see other comments on this. My thought is that while it might be the biggest marketplace now, that could change over time?
@norbhere On Constraints, what do you think about limiting this to Organizations? I think that even NFTs for people should have their own entity separate from the person. For example:
More examples here: NFT project - Wiki | Golden
I really think that OpenSea will be the leading marketplace for the next years but what I have concerns about is that some projects may decide to have their own (inner) marketplace. Like BigTime did for example.
So yes NFT Marketplace URL with a link to any of the NFT marketplaces should be a good option.
To limit this to Organizations sounds good to me. The only concern is that people don’t always use this entity. For example, there are a couple of projects that don’t have an Organization entity but have already listed collections:
You are right. In your example Parallel has Cryptocurrency entity, but it isn’t correct. So, we just need to add new entity (Organization) and after that we can add NFT Marketplace URL.
I agree that predicate NFT Marketplace URL sounds good. But I think we need to limit the possible URLs, for example people will have option only add secure marketplaces (OpenSea, LooksRare, X2Y2). Because if we don’t have restrictions, then people will start adding a huge number of different marketplaces, which may have a dubious reputation, and this may lead to loss of funds for people who follow this link in the future.
Also I suppose that OpenSea will be the leading marketplace in next 5 years, because it has the main advantages - Security and Liquidity. Other marketplaces will not be able to quickly attract so many users to overtake Opensea. Now there is a downtrend, which may last until the next halving, respectively, so many new people will not come to the market in the near future, who will create liquidity on other marketplaces to overtake Opensea in terms of trading volumes.
For example, there are other reliable sites, I propose to supplement each proposal for further inclusion in the final list. For example
I am concerned that an ‘NFT Marketplace URL’ predicate will not able to have a canonical URL, as NFTs can be listed and traded on multiple marketplaces. We want to focus on very durable data, without being subject to winner-take-all constraints (ie just using OpenSea). That said, the minting contract for an NFT collection could be considered canonical.
A great idea which I didn’t think about! Actually yes, NFT collection can be considered similar to a token, and for token we’re just providing the contract and the ticker, not a link to coingecko or any specific exchange.
due to the variosity of the marketplaces it is more suitable to submit the “Contract address” the same as for the tokens
The problem with NFT collection listing is there are too many of them. I see same with Tokens and Meme coins. The amount of time we spend on input should be useful for the future generations who rely on valuable information. Coming to good NFT projects always have either of Website or Twitter account. Just providing project and Opensea account might put lot of fake collections can be marked as real ones or vice versa.
good idea, can’t agree more
I think it’s a good idea, but let’s not ignore the fungibility of the nft market itself, it’s quite possible that a year or two later a certain nft market will no longer exist. We should base our strategy on the fact that it is very difficult to change.
When searching for information about nft projects on the Golden website, I noticed that there are many projects whose pages are no longer there. I think it’s really helpful to ask for a contract when adding nft projects, but it won’t work with new projects that don’t have one yet.
Many users, when adding information about the NFT collection in Golden, list OPENSEA as the collection’s main site. I think this is not correct.
This sounds good, but if the NFT link is added, then how to pass the verification it, the verification needs to be verified by the current subject’s address, not necessarily over to the current subject’s address
One more question is, is it opensea,or x2y2,or other markets?