Build a Custom Marketplace

Draft Proposals
82

I have made an edit to reflect a joint-custodial model. We can still roll this back at the preference of the council or LG.

To followup on a few items from the AMA:

  • We will be using Certik for the security audit.
  • The bulk of our current work is on Forte’s project. Client privacy is a concern here so that is all we can post.
  • We are open to taking a payment in USDC to purchase the RBW requested, and to moving the RBW payment to upon delivery.
  • The Solidity contracts will follow the Diamond Pattern (EIP-2335) so they will be up-gradable post launch. We prefer this method to a non-up-gradable contract for many reason, not the least of which is the ability to fix a mistake. The keys needed to upgrade the contract will only be held by myself (Chris Thibault) and our CTO (Evan Owen). We use Hardware wallets to store these keys.

Thanks again for all the great questions. I will continue to add answers here all day.

1 Like
83

MerkleRoot - please notice this message. Many of the voters against JC are just following the trend. Id implore you to settle on your own preferred architecture for the marketplace. A technical design that helps deliver the best “fit for purpose” product. Thanks.

1 Like
84

TXS BY MARKETPLACE TYPE:
LISTING:

FC:
1 tx, sends the asset from your wallet to the marketplace. This lists the asset, and gives you what they called a "receipt"

JC - option one - approval by token - This option approves only a single token at a time:
1 tx, to approve the token to be spent (listed)
1 signature, (this is not a transaction) to list the item on the market.

JC - option two - approval for all - this approves the entire collection (this is what opensea does):
1 tx, the first time you list an asset on the marketplace
1 signature, every time after that, it takes a single signature

ONCE SOLD:

FC:
1 tx, to give the marketplace your receipt, and claim your ETH (or whatever currency it sold for)

JC - both options:
after it sells, the ETH will automatically be in your account.

DELISTING

FC:
1 tx, that gives the marketplace your receipt, and returns the nft to you

JC - both options:
1 tx, that tells the marketplace that your item is no longer for sale

PURCHASING

1 tx, all 3 are the same to my understanding, you pay the eth and get the nft back

OFFERS

FC:
I might be wrong on this, but from my understanding:
1 tx, you send the eth to your marketplace, the marketplace gives you what they called a "receipt"

JC - option one - approve specific amount:
1 tx, to approve a specific amount of WETH to be spend by the marketplace. This is matic chain, so no wrapping is needed (its always weth)
1 signature, (this is not a transaction) to place an offer on the item

JC - option two - approve for all - this approves the max int number of eth to be spent:
1 tx, to approve all eth to be spent by the marketplace
1 signature, every time after that, it takes a single signature

SUMMARY:

FC:
1 tx, sends the asset from your wallet to the marketplace. This lists the asset, and gives you what they called a "receipt"
1 tx, to give the marketplace your receipt, and claim your ETH (or whatever currency it sold for)
1 tx, that gives the marketplace your receipt, and returns the nft to you
1 tx, all 3 are the same to my understanding, you pay the eth and get the nft back
1 tx, you send the eth to your marketplace, the marketplace gives you what they called a "receipt"

JC - option one - approve specifics:
1 tx, to approve the token to be spent (listed)
1 signature, (this is not a transaction) to list the item on the market.
after it sells, the ETH will automatically be in your account.
1 tx, that tells the marketplace that your item is no longer for sale
1 tx, all 3 are the same to my understanding, you pay the eth and get the nft back
1 tx, to approve a specific amount of WETH to be spend by the marketplace. This is matic chain, so no wrapping is needed (its always weth)
1 signature, (this is not a transaction) to place an offer on the item


JC - option two - approve all:
1 tx, the first time you list an asset on the marketplace
1 signature, every time after that, it takes a single signature
after it sells, the ETH will automatically be in your account.
1 tx, that tells the marketplace that your item is no longer for sale
1 tx, all 3 are the same to my understanding, you pay the eth and get the nft back
1 tx, to approve all eth to be spent by the marketplace
1 signature, every time after that, it takes a single signature

FC:
5 txs

JC - option one - approve specifics:
4 tx, 2 signatures

JC - option two - approve all:
2 tx, 2 signatures, 2 txs first time only

I also want to add, that support for both JC option 1 and JC option 2 can exist at the same time with no extra work
it can be decided by the user how they want to handle their security

2 Likes
85

Why do we need to use receipts for FC? The payment can be transferred automatically. It’s akin to give an item to a consignment store and having them hold it for you till sale. If there’s no sale there’s a return, and if there is one you get the money automatically transferred.

86

I dont know, that is just the way that I saw it explained here.

87

personally, it seems like the entire process for either JC or FC is being way over-complicated. I wish they would explain the reasoning behind the way they are doing things.

88

Is there are reason receipts are being used for FC?

89

Uh, they actually did over here:

and here:

I thought it was a pretty straight forward decision. Then there was FUD created around FC and everyone started jumping on the JC bandwagon.

90

I meant the receipts as being the over complicated part for FC. For JC they are talking like the oracle they have to build is this big bad thing, when in reality, it should not need to be. I have outlined multiple ways to simplify it in my previous posts.

91

This proposal is currently on Council Review but please feel free to continue the discussion. The review ends July 31, 04:40. UTC.

This proposal was also revised around 11 hours ago to reflect:

  • joint custody design update
  • 500K RBW disbursement schedule update

Please do review the first post if you haven’t yet.

Thank you, everyone.

2 Likes
92

The “simplification” is not really that simple. Your base case is “listen to the contract” which in Polygon is a nightmare. We already have the issue of on chain transactions requiring a large number of confirmations before being confirmed in game due to Polygon’s slow finality and reordering. If we were on Avalanche, a change could be reflected within 15s but thats practically impossible on Polygon. So if you get a scenario where new breeding points take a few mins to reflect, that sounds like it could be abused very easily. Especially as the game gets more popular and people are looking to “snipe” good deals.

Then theres the issue of actually having an observer which itself if a completely separate undertaking. You need to be connected to an RPC constantly listening (additional costs) and when either the RPC fails, or your observer fails for whatever reason we start getting lag which is what happens with OS.

No the oracle is not a “big bad thing” but the oracle definitely adds way more points of possible failure/attack for marginal security improvements.

93

This is not true. CU is just overly cautious. Cyberkongz has zero waits and I have never seen a report of a single user having an issue.

either way, it looks like they changed the proposal to JC anyways.

94

Or CU is is using industry standard for Polygon and the project you mentioned is being extremely risky? For a good overview look at the confirmation times Circle uses:

or IDEX

One small project choosing to play it fast and loose doesn’t mean other projects should. One of Polygon’s major deficiencies is the slow finality and long confirmation and that’s what currently being worked on. If you have evidence to the contrary would love to see it.

Yea seems like they are going JC because you got the momentum started early on against FC.

1 Like
95

totally agree
Doing so contributes to the future development of our community

96

Could we rank all unicorns in our own personal collections? It would be useful if I could filter all flower unicorns by movement speed first then magic (for example) this would be a very useful tool for players with large herds who wish to filter out weaker corns to sell.

1 Like
97

I support this, would be better to have our own marketplace

98

Why did they launch the market vote in such a short time? (If further proposals are not also launched within 6-7 days, from the date the proposal was published. That would be a clear answer for the community)
A number of questions are unanswered.
Please give a clear answer. Because of the affiliation between Laguna and this company, is this project so promoted by Laguna employees?
Also, when will the economics of the game be addressed? At the moment, players can not earn in this game, because in this game there is no such thing as “economy”. At the same time, Comrade Schmidt (which ceased to communicate with ordinary mortals, only during AMA sessions, and then selectively), said that there will be such an economy, which is several times better than existing, in other games!
Also, here I see a lot of praise OpenSea, but for some reason no one wrote that the problem with the blocked / unblocked land - it’s a problem of Laguna, not OpenSea, it is a developer to track and make changes to the settings / code on their site, which Laguna, of course, scored. We still have not received a clear explanation on this issue.

Based on the above, I do not see any reason to force the issue with the market.
We must wait for more proposals, and ourselves to attract developers to do the job.
Collect all the estimates / proposals on this issue.
And only after that do the voting, which estimate / proposal is more suitable for the community.

1 Like
99

I am against because of the inadequate price of the service ($300k/year). At the moment, we do not have such a load to pay for hosting more than $4k, and it is not known when it will appear. We have only 700 accounts playing. Might be worth considering a more progressive pay.
And Elastic seems like a forced solution.
I hope the bear market will reduce the inflated expectations of developers and make reasonable prices for development.

2 Likes
100

All your questions except the first has been answered before. Not sure why you present them as new questions.

Because of the affiliation between Laguna and this company, is this project so promoted by Laguna employees?

They have worked together before and in some sense in “endorsed” by the team. Random unvetted teams for obvious reasons aren’t going to be given a bunch of money to work on new features.

Also, when will the economics of the game be addressed? At the moment, players can not earn in this game, because in this game there is no such thing as “economy”. At the same time, Comrade Schmidt (which ceased to communicate with ordinary mortals, only during AMA sessions, and then selectively), said that there will be such an economy, which is several times better than existing, in other games!

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion on this thread.

Also, here I see a lot of praise OpenSea, but for some reason no one wrote that the problem with the blocked / unblocked land - it’s a problem of Laguna, not OpenSea, it is a developer to track and make changes to the settings / code on their site, which Laguna, of course, scored. We still have not received a clear explanation on this issue.

Don’t think you’ve done the research or you don’t understand the problem. OS is designed to list all NFTs from a collection. It’s not designed to be a game marketplace that has fast changing attributes. OS updates metadata periodically. You can’t force them to update metadata real time because the majority of their trading volume comes from static NFTs. They so far have shown little to no interest in supporting game NFTs. The locked issue can never be solved on OS unless they add new features.

1 Like
101
  1. I asked my questions on 07/27/2022. My post was ignored.
  2. The original post was not edited to add the necessary information there

You don’t have to tell me the same thing over and over again… All this nonsense I’ve read many times before, that OpenSea is to blame.

  1. After the problem occurred on OpenSea. The team’s position was that it was OpenSea’s fault, not Laguna’s

  2. After some time, the people in charge looked up the information on the website of OpenSea, and it turned out that it was Laguna’s problem.

  3. Since this information came out, there have been REAL fixes on the OpenSea website with the locked/unlocked assets (which also don’t work fully)

  4. How many months has it been since the problem with the jammed assets occurred? How long has it been since you attempted to make a fix on OpenSea? How long did Laguna deny there was a problem? I’d like to hear from you to answer these questions.
    Why is it only now that this team is showing up? What steps is Laguna taking to get more teams to implement TK on the market? (Is there even a ToR, I’m not talking about some text somewhere, but a full-fledged ToR)

  5. The question about the portfolio of this team is absent.

  6. Questions about work experience - ignored

At this point I see that the forum there is a talking head, which advocates for work in potential investors, no more. Her job is to get clients interested in choosing their company.
It reminds me of Aron, who talks about everything and nothing.

My suggestion is simple:

  1. Conduct a tender
  2. Collect bids
  3. Get the demo version of the product and a comment proposal from the teams
  4. Put it up for a vote by the DAO
    Not what I’m seeing right now. I know this man, I trust him.