Fully custodial = You send them your items to list it on the marketplace. This means that when you list the item, it is no longer in your wallet, or under your control. If something were to happen to the contract (like what happened here: https://twitter.com/0xfoobar/status/1517680400142716929 ), your unicorn / land / whatever else would be stuck in the contract forever. Another big downside is taxes (in the US at least). Because you are making 2 different transactions, 1 that moves it out of your wallet, and another that brings the money back in. This becomes 2 different taxable events instead of just 1 (they are proposing receipts, so event 1 would be trade Unicorn NFT for Receipt NFT, event 2 would be trade Receipt NFT for ETH)
Joint Custodial = you approve the contract to move / spend your assets. This is what opensea and almost all other marketplaces do. (see: https://twitter.com/opensea/status/1552321796141039617 ). The approval can be revoked at any time on Token Approvals | PolygonScan removing ANY AND ALL ACCESS that they may have to your NFT. The downside is the issue we currently have with opensea and the locked NFTs, but that could easily be solved on a custom build website by watching when unicorns are locked into game and updating the marketplace (i wont go into technical details for this)
At this point I’m in favor of JC until I hear a more compelling argument for FC.
As for the monitoring needed for JC, even if sometimes it fell behind and someone tried to buy an NFT that was locked, that transaction would fail just like OS. Upon locked failure the listing should be taken down and the account should get flagged. Flagged accounts could have all their listings revoked which would make it quite a hassle.
The reason that locked NFTs are a problem on OS is that they stay there after purchase attempts, not that they show up at all.
Even still, there are multiple ways around that. Give me an opensea key and I can have all the data refresh daily. Only locking a unicorn, have it change the PFP to a locked version of it
I think this is a bit pricery, from the fixed $25k/month maintenance perspective; however, ultimately if @darthschmitty13 thinks the project can benefit over the long term from owning the product and having control over the process and secondary fees, then my faith and backing are here to push this forward.
The difference is that this is a marketplace designed for crypto unicorns, so real time updating of the locked / unlocked status is easy. Opensea is a massive marketplace that does not have the time or desire to solve issues like that for a single project
As the technicalities are being questioned by our DAO council members (which I highly commend the team for being active on this proposal)
My only concern is the UI/UX design of the marketplace. Pretty sure it was stated that this is just a mock up but I think this will be the baseline of what it may look in the future.
I ain’t a fan of this type of UI/UX so I think it’s best if you guys can collab with our CU discord members (@Inseenity and @Takoyaki )as they have lots of UI/UX design mock ups too that you guys can integrate with your marketplace. Not only that they are good with the design but as someone who’s been around CU since the beginning, they literally know what they should add or what the community wants to be on the UI/UX of the possible new marketplace for CU.
Laguna is US company and still delaying and not providing updates on time. Such marketplace (in current proposal) should not take more than 2-3 months to develop. So price should be much lower. Good Europe/Asia teams would deliver much better product than merkleroot proposed
@Maxbrand99
Just as a point of comfort with the full custody model is the following:
in case a catastrophic failure would happen – let’s be honest, CU could just reissue all the assets as if nothing would have happened. Ofc not super easy to execute – but there will always be that fallback
I think this makes it much easier to digest
This would be as catastrophic if not more catastrophic than anything else. There are so many different complications that come with re-creating assets like this
Maybe we should do a snapshot vote for if we want full custodial or join custodial first? Personally I think the risks of fully custodial is being overblown. Here are my thoughts:
Fully custodial is extremely straightforward from a security perspective. Literally the contract holds your asset, and acts as sort of a consignment store. The contract then just makes an exchange when there is a willing buyer and then transfers the funds to you. Straightforward.
With the joint custodial it’s not. You first give the contract open permission to move your assets and then once a bid is accepted you move the assets and the transfer is made. The benefit of this being you technically own the asset till there is an accepted bid. The only real security benefit here is there’s no chance your asset gets stuck in the contract but it increases complexity and therefore the surface area for attack tremendously.
For one, assets can be listed in multiple places at once. This seems fine if you’re a neutral marketplace and want to play nice with others, but do we really want that? Ideally we encourage all CU transactions to happen within our marketplace to capture the fees. I’m also willing to bet some large portion of listed but locked assets are because people listed them, forgot about it, and after logging into the game saw an unlocked asset which they decide to lock in. Not malicious, just forgetful. This will continue to happen, which makes us extremely reliant on observers.
With joint custodial, you have to keep watching the blockchain for changes and update metadata accordingly. If this fails (and it will), the marketplace will be outdated. We will be quick to jump the on the developer’s throat about it failing but will forget that we forced this complexity on them. Any developer worth their salt knows that long running observers will fail occasionally and if possible its best not to rely on them being up 24/7. I’m sure many will be ready to take advantage of this data lag and we soon we will get a subset of issues we have on OS.
As with any smart contract there is a chance of things going wrong. That is an overall risk. But saying that one solution has no chance of risk while the other does is extremely misleading.
Regarding this being thought of as “expensive”; you should look around for web3 developer salaries. This seems standard to me. Yes, we can get someone cheaper from *to get it done 40% cheaper, but has that ever worked out for anyone?
