Top Tweets for #sharedrisk

How ERC-721R failed and why you should be paying attention. Don’t get me wrong, ERC-721R was a great leap forward. It set a new standard of trust between CREATOR and COLLECTOR. However, it didn’t go far enough. Let me explain. With ERC-721R the focus was on REFUNDABILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. Both of these are important features that solve problems for collectors but don’t address problems for founders. Let’s consider this scenario: You launch a collection only to have it subject to targeted FUD and have 70-80% of your project refunded. Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but it’s a possibility. Refund mechanics are an asymmetric risk for CREATORS. That level of RISK-SHARE doesn’t prompt builders to adopt your contract standard. From an accountability perspective refund mechanics are great for COLLECTORS. But we’d argue that this is a moot point. No founder who sets out to rug is going to build on ERC-721R. It’s for these reasons that we’d argue why we haven’t seen the adoption of this contract standard. The industry needs something more. Recognizing these limitations, we at The Colony aimed to solve them with ERC-721S and the SWAP protocol. ERC-721S introduces four key features: Risk-Share: Locks a percentage of mint revenue in a SWAP pool to foster trust. Flexibility: Provides options to either SWAP or HOLD NFTs. Gamification: Makes the minting process more engaging. Right-Sizing: Addresses oversupply and under-demand, ensuring balanced collections. Our approach didn’t just focus on minters. We thought about both CREATOR and COLLECTOR. In the evolving landscape of NFTs, trust and balance between creators and collectors has never been more crucial. While ERC-721R made strides in accountability, its focus on refundability put creators at risk. That was unacceptable to us. ERC-721S aims to level the playing field, delivering a more comprehensive approach that benefits both parties. Whether you’re a creator or collector, at The Colony, we’ve got your back.