NEAR Contract Standards Community Call -- May 25th, 2023

Captions as YouTube publishes them, usually machine-generated, so product and people names can be misheard.

1. 0:06

   well in that case I guess I'm gonna get this thing started so hi everybody Welcome to the contract Community call contract standards Community call number two uh my name is Max I am a Dev Hub community contributor and I'm here to kiss off today to talk up to do a follow-up on the multi-token discussion for Community call number one um move up these slides just a quick little stuff so just some reminders on the format

2. 0:40

   these community group meetings they're open they're designed to you know provide a forum to discuss questions ideas and concerns related to your contract standards help shape ideas proposals this is a free format discussion I want people to feel free to chime in at any moment you know preferably not too disruptive inside um um everyone please introduce yourself in the chat if you be so kind so we can move things forward in the interest of time and my role will just be to take

3. 1:13

   notes and ensure decorum and we will host the supporting and summary on Twitter and on YouTube shortly after this fall so the agenda today is just the multi-token discussion follow-up we had a very Lively discussion last time um people for the most part seem to want to move things along for nap 245 and see about getting comments and and concerns of GitHub so they can actually get that voted on hopefully some form of it influence it or something it's in but we

4. 1:45

   will we'll see how the discussion takes us today um I think Sean wanted to pick us up with piss off with a quick introduction so Sean if you said time so just pass it over to you yeah thank you Maxwell I just want to start by thanking everyone from the contract standard Community as well as the wallets and indexers and attendance for taking the time my name is Sean Bender from tenement we've been working internally on developing a version of the multi-talken for our own

5. 2:11

   business use case since mid-2022 uh and kind of been in discussion the last six to eight weeks with the ecosystem uh to see what a multi-token standard should look like that meets all near stakeholders so obviously the input from Wallace and indexers is Paramount to ecosystem-wide adoption and that's like the main purpose of the call today so I think the CTA from the tenement side Uncle Tony and Alex from our team post a reference implementation for the NEP 245

6. 2:36

   on the near NEP proposal board for the gay Cup by Monday I think we take the discussion for comments and responses over the next week there uh potentially could get handed off to the contract working group or the wallet working group for review and then once all comments are resolved potentially a vote so I'll throw it to our CTO Alex now for a synopsis of on what our Viewpoint is and what we've discussed with the community and if anyone wants to raise a hand or chime in we can go from there so Alex

7. 3:02

   uh hello everyone uh it was nice to see people here from uh businesses uh yeah so the there were a couple of uh ideas discussions around what parts of the protocol should be optional mandatory and I think we will probably at least we think we should go into making everything that makes sense to the optional optional even if for some use cases it might uh it used to have a value some kind of on the on the side okay let's make it more flexible to just remove any barrier currently for everyone and we'll come later on just to

8. 3:43

   you know or to force things as needed uh again uh I think most important is for people just to to see that this standard fits their needs because that was the main reason is why we started this initiative we wanted the standard and the representation that would be good enough to get started with and then build on top of and we found the multitasking the closest thing but it was not right it was not a standard fully adopted and it had an incomplete

9. 4:14

   reference implementation uh who wants this notifications yeah you want to have something that works as a foundation it's cool is there any um link um that we can uh yeah we have uh the reference here in this cup let me just find the link

10. 5:24

    I missed the last call so I'm not fully up to speed with the like what was discussed to be honest but I wanted to ask whether it's um if you already tried to run it in production have you had a chance to like run through the like real use cases um or you're still like you're approaching it from nap point of view first and then we initially started with uh just an NFC standard implementation because you wanted to have interoperability

11. 6:06

    requirements that we thought it would be necessary for the MVP and then when I graduated to the multiple standard so we have that that one already in production wow yes and and so last time he just saw Alex was finding those links um and putting them in the chat so you know last time we had um you know discussed this standard from a variety of perspectives um we had invited um wallet stakeholders to join us today

12. 6:47

    I don't know if is anybody else is anybody here from a wallability perspective at all no Okay so we have invited them to join the call um unfortunately you know none of them have you know actually registered or maybe they registered maybe they didn't maybe they're not here but you know from the conversations the brief conversations that we've had with them they've all you know they have said that you know if it is you know a standard is approved then without a doubt they will

13. 7:21

    provide the support for it so um you know I think that was a you know very simple yet um you know solid answer from their perspective um of course maybe different wallet Builders have different perspectives um that was from I think Peter uh I think he's from here wallet um and so you know from my perspective like if we are able to approve it and get it standardized and everything is you know and you know you know we can

14. 7:52

    address any um issues um or you know changes that need to need to happen um then you know the wall Builders they are keen on adopting it so and and ready to do so as long as it's standardized so um I don't think that poses a major issue or a road bump in any sense of the uh you know in any way so um that's just uh you know touching up on last not last week um two weeks ago um you know where we are regarding that

15. 8:23

    stuff I see all right yeah that's unfortunate that we don't have um the representatives to discuss because otherwise it seems a bit pointless I know Maxwell uh sorry I cut you off uh no I just saw that Lachlan was on the call and wondered if he had you know you brought up some concerns last time that maybe you wanted to to make half of this meeting and you know maybe discuss whether or not you changed your mind or whether these people take the uh the same general perspective

16. 9:01

    yeah sure um sorry there's a big like plane or something going by at the moment um yeah look I I just felt like we needed representation from um the projects specifically wallets and indexers I mean we can speak um also on the index aside but um I felt like there wasn't enough participation by the projects that would actually be essentially required to implement the standard um on the like receiving end um and questions about like how these

17. 9:35

    tokens are designed I think should be considered from the point of view of of that end of the implementation really like if for instance if a wallet wants to display semi-fungible tokens um do they think it makes more sense for them to be designed from their perspective of fungible tokens that contain maybe some extra metadata properties Etc maybe some kind of extension on a fundable token standard

18. 9:59

    or does it make more sense for them to come from the nft perspective with kind of fungible elements because I think that's that's one thing that like I don't want to sound like a broken record and like at a certain point I promise I'll shut up um but but I just think that like it it seems to me that these that semi-fungible tokens firstly semi-fungible tokens are the use case that makes this multi-token standard necessary um in my opinion it's if I'm wrong like

19. 10:29

    someone can correct me but we have we we have a standard for fungible tokens we have a Sunday for non-fungible tokens there are semi-fungible tokens which is why Bridges like XP Network reached out to us a few and far and said hey what's the deal with multi children standard what can we do to improve this because we have no way to represent semi-fungible tokens on near we have fungible tokens covered we have non-fungible tokens but not semi-fungible tokens um it yes there's also the the question of

20. 10:54

    like if people want to just straight up like bridge over like essentially have an ERC 1155 equivalent on here that's another question um I would argue that we don't need to necessarily have an ERC 1155 equivalent on near because we already have our own ecosystem and our own standards and what we should probably the way we should probably think about this is rather than copying what exists on another chain that operates on an entirely different

21. 11:19

    technical model and has an entirely different Community we should probably think about what is missing that is preventing us from implementing something on in our community and on our Tech uh you know on our um Tech um and and then think about like how we can best fill in those blanks which would make it the most backwards compatible and the least kind of obtrusive um and to to implement because ultimately like there's no point of a standard that doesn't gain broad adoption um so my concern is that if if those

22. 11:52

    aren't really considered if those those basic design questions aren't considered and and it creates a standard that is um that is a lot of work or considered by the the key projects that we need to implement it as um like a ton of work to to implement and not particularly backwards compatible and um you know adds duplication for instance like you know fragmentation of nfts and fungible tokens uh which this would create

23. 12:25

    um then it it just is risky in my opinion um so yeah I mean ultimately I just want to like kind of Express my concerns and if other people don't share those concerns then then I will recognize that um and if other people share them or have other concerns I would encourage them to to kind of voice them because I think now is the time um to do that um and and my my key concern kind of just being that

24. 12:55

    that if a multi-token contract um standard is implemented um essentially that multi-token contract would contain various kinds of tokens including fundable tokens what we consider to be tokens that have the attributes of fungible tokens and non-fungible tokens but they would not represent they would not be within the fungible token or non-fungible token standard because they would be within the multi-token standard so we have it makes it very difficult I think although

25. 13:28

    maybe I'm wrong and people can explain um give examples of how this would be for instance indexed it makes it difficult for it puts a lot of onus on indexers to make decisions on what kinds of tokens something is and what something should be represented as that in my opinion should probably not be made by the indexes and should be given by the contract utilizing existing standards in

26. 13:58

    most cases um so that's kind of just like where my concerns lie and again if no one shares them then that's that's totally fine yeah uh hello everyone hello hey Michael yeah loud and clear nice to meet you guys uh I have a little concerns about the standards it's like uh because you know um maybe wallet can tell uh a token just uh you know is a non-conscious non-conscionable token or Foundry token uh through you know the name of the interface but for this

27. 14:44

    standard mft standards if we have assumed we have a contract that um they have it has the it has both foundable token and the non-conscious token is there any way to tell uh for a specific token ID that could tell is it a non-fungible token or fungible token because you know it um something like wallet we are treated in a very different way for fungible token and the non-political token so for the current standards I uh uh I I don't see a

28. 15:22

    a specific interface to do that work to you know distinguish the township token that's one concern and another concern is I just uh putting the message that uh for the token structure I want to I want it to be need uh as much as possible so that's two concerns from my perspective yeah okay um yeah I can I can probably answer this one the way I see it uh by definition uh I'm non-tangible talking is talking about has a total supply for one per token ID and has zero

29. 16:05

    uh decimals we're gonna talk in the math like that's kind of the definition of fundable one a total supplier upon and no decimals there are also these semi-findable tokens which have a small Supply and they're usually non-divisible like for instance they could have uh a total of uh a total mass of 100.

30. 16:35

    and again there would be no no decimals so they would be essentially semicondable because it could not subdivide it we just can buy one off and two or up to them and that would be probably the closest implementation towards 1155 is just most of the time nowadays it's for this uh one of f kind of nfcs and uh in my opinion that's what makes sense because you don't need to add additional metadata to describe this we just look at the

31. 17:06

    total of the token Supply and if it's a supplier format but yeah it makes sense to make it more and more obvious we can definitely add some metadata on how stuff should be displayed I think I'm not sure if that should be included in this deck or that's probably or maybe that's something to discuss in some perspective suspect about how to display traits and various metadata information in

32. 17:30

    wallets and how to deal with token families and groups and groups of talking and like there is a lot of edge cases here how to best display talking for a certain use case across ecosystem but I think at a higher level it's probably the talking Supply and then the metadata which should Define our topic should be handled and then displayed I think there's two things one handling is set up on display yeah yeah

33. 18:04

    you know the point here is like uh we uh uh yeah I know there will be uh different ways to tell the just distinguish from the standards uh by different you know projects uh could we make it something like a standard to tell the the the developer that if the decimal is known it is a null our decimal is zero it means it's a nonpointed token if we can make it a standard maybe uh maybe it will be good for all the developers yeah I mean I might be biased here I I'm kind of a

34. 18:43

    purist in believing that one standard will not be the first solution and we want redundancy standards as well that is we already have one MSD standard which does pretty well for its specific use case of transferable non-fungible one-on-one right and that's what I would use if I want to just create a one-on-one drop I'll just use a mask and if I want to do a utility token that has a standard use case like for instance a doubt right I would probably use an

35. 19:25

    empty I would use the Ft sometimes for that now if I want to use a fungible talking for my farm which can accept a multitude of talking for my for my liquidity pool which can accept multiple different tokens inside the pool then here I would not use a function I will not use the active standard here yeah yeah so I think all three standards should should exist or maybe there'll be more standard like this in the future and while I'm seeing the superset that

36. 19:56

    alone would allow people to have purely non-fungible purely fungible process I don't think in my opinion that should not be the goal the goal should be just to have a standard that allows this Advanced use cases without sacrificing functionality and with minimum complexity but for more simple use cases I don't see why we will not just continue supporting drone Starlet again that's my personal opinion maybe the consensus would be different

37. 20:24

    ah and we definitely open to include more of these guidelines in the standard itself if you guys think we should include guidelines on metadata and on Supply and on transferability in the losses and even an extensions for things like royalty and payout and uh and pay our delegation like key delegation like sure we can include that in the standard I I believe these are just use cases which so they might be part of the

38. 21:00

    standard might be standard extensions is most makes more sense right now to be including in standard so to also address the first question the first concern we've got uh is that is that yes we we want backward compatibility but not if that means that the multi-talking standard will not allow this flexibility right I think the most important thing is total flexibility going forward and if possible have some backward compatibility for people who maybe want to just have understand that of course

39. 21:47

    their product range to not deal with them but I don't think that should be a primary goal in my opinion yeah for discussion respond to this use cases which are not well covered by nfcs first of all and then if you can get additional things in the standard shirt we'll try to do our best amount of duplication between empty standard and nasty yes that's probably one of the main things that's like a brought up yes there's amplification I don't know how we can get rid of

40. 22:33

    multiplication but I don't think it's necessarily bad yeah I mean the concern it just raises to me is that if you do have something that's two things that are 95 the same which this really is currently um maybe and and one is not replacing the other and they both then need to be kind of maintained um and they're both going to essentially Implement like 95 of their logic is going to be identical um and their interfaces

41. 23:05

    Etc um that just for me is a little bit of a you know potential warning sign that uh you know maybe they are not actually such separate things um we can look at the amount of lines of course that's a duplicates or not I think the number level with NFC is closer to 50 in terms of course but in terms of the Manifest itself yeah there's a lot more a lot closer to 90 because the Manifest is something that's very very relevant

42. 23:39

    for the season for empties and not something that's used much for the fundable market so in terms of the Manifest and things like royalties and um yes the overlap is like close to 100 there's also overlap with spongible token for instance in terms of allowances and on terms like uh token Supply is pretty big there so it just happens that vanity is technically more complex so it's more lines of course has more overlapped

43. 24:18

    oh well from my experience from what I was observing of like I also thought that Mt is just a small extension but ultimately there are actually quite a few places in the interface where it's much more complex than uh just ft or just an ft so it's I view this like more multiplication of the complication rather than just addition so if if we're speaking about like combining ft and nft in the same contract this only means that you can have one like some of the

44. 25:00

    items that are not countable and others that are like and the only one like talking and and it's only one that you can have as a fungible have a fungible interface when you combine it together it it's more more features there there are more things in terms of security and how to revert those changes and what to do if like one um one token can be reverted another cannot be because there isn't like already it's already spent so all those uh rollbacks are getting more and more complicated

45. 25:42

    and uh from the events point of view you also need to account for those so it become it becomes bigger uh payload here and there so from what I've seen so far it is and and it's not clear indeed how to display it properly on the wallet side so I think there will be different applications for um for for um multi tokens and this will be informing us as we go so I would suggest that the interfaces are like defined

46. 26:25

    and then I imagine there will be an extensions added with guidelines with like um some hints is it attacks like you know standard or is it a game with where Gold Silver and some something else um yeah yeah yes exactly that's what I'm thinking and most probably we would want in the long term but probably functionality I'm just playing kind of starting to couples and most probably just properly displaying a multitasking will be a bit more

47. 27:04

    complicated than just showing a bunch of cards and then a few side of the wallet I personally would like would want to see them more like um oh like an order book Dex kind of thing like a table like uh you can have the the graphics representation of the token but also some details right that makes sense that makes a lot of sense of things like that have both a supply and a magnet test like for instance collectible items in the game

48. 27:37

    uh or it might make sense for things that are for example uh staked staked coin receipts or um uh liquidity pool receipts right because those have amounts but they also have certain things certain attributes like um it can be an interest bearing asset and liquidation data have a bunch of things irrelevant to that particular token and not relevant to others in terms of UI probably something that something like I think is additional discussions uh if you want to cover

49. 28:19

    really really easy people see why but I also not really stick clicks for the for the UI stuff to to be a one-step process it's probably gonna be on an iterative process in which we'll just maybe develop it or develop it over time as we find these messages but I agree here there's a lot uh what's currently being used in 1165 this place is just a slightly more advanced nft it's probably not enough in the long term but

50. 28:53

    in the short term that's still better still at least a low some some functionalities that it won't be possible because to display the energy is in this case it's only let's say five cards in a game of the of a certain times all right it's just not our game so anyways guys okay describing any any kind of implementation of this and any kind of consensus for the wallets like the question is right now is just

51. 29:39

    people are using it is for these use cases and a lot of times they don't even show up in the wallets at all yeah I agree with that I I you know I think that it'll definitely be an iterative process on the ux um you know UI side um you know I I personally you know do see it from a Collectibles point of view and you know you know kind of categorized as that but with a extra you know when you click into your collectible like if you think about mind your wallet right you click into that collectible you would

52. 30:17

    have that additional data underneath um once you click into it right and that's how I would see it displayed but it it really depends um on you know I I could see it from other perspectives as well where it is you know closer to you know uh a more fungible type asset anyways um I just want to talk about the overlap and the need for a you know need for the token in general um and the standard in general um you know it has you know I I hear what you're saying

53. 30:49

    um when people well Lachlan when you're basically saying that you know we don't need to have an 1155 equivalent um you know we have our own Community we have our own ecosystem I will say that you know Inc you know in conversations um you know just around Austin and consensus when talking to people people actually that is a sticking point with people you know coming to near and

54. 31:13

    building on near is that there is no 1155 equivalent uh and I'm not saying it has to be the exact same as 11 55 but what I will say is that people are looking for that functionality and you know it you know and you you can see that directly with the people that are you know building on year right now right but between tenement open uh Forest protocol um uh what was it uh the Kenny I think he's building ample is his name um and there are some other examples as

55. 31:43

    well that are all using some you know or have some need for this and so if that's you know just a small subset of you know a relatively you know small in your community that are active in these calls and you know you know saying that we need these these standards um then I do think that you know it's illustrative enough of a need here and that's why we do want to move this along to you know to build it right and to to

56. 32:09

    get things to a place where they can be standardized and you know we will absolutely continue to hear other perspectives but um I think it is important um to to explore and um and you know kind of build this out for that reason for that for not only the current need but also the growth of the ecosystem overall in the long term because sure near has a great ecosystem but it would be great to see it 10 times bigger with 10 times more projects and

57. 32:41

    you know 100 times more users right yeah for sure um look I agree um I think I think um building out uh the kind of guidelines of of how how the contracts and tokens and events Etc should be interpreted um will be very helpful because that's kind of what I'm worried about is is interpreters which are probably mostly going to be indexers um kind of not having a standardized way to go about that and then these and then kind of being interpreted in different

58. 33:15

    ways and then we end up with this you know potentially kind of mixed up State and understanding of of of what they are and how they should be interpreted so yeah I think I think just um uh you know adding that would be helpful um so that so that yeah people who can who are going to be implementing it primarily indexers can can understand how they're going to be in implementing it and and kind of be

59. 33:40

    informed I think that'll be helpful yeah I think that's fair enough um you know it's unfortunate that we didn't get any representation from that perspective here on this call today but I think you know um what we can do is you know maybe it's not maybe it's a time maybe it's you know no one wants to you know give up 30 minutes of their busy day to you know for this but I do think that we can probably get some feedback directly on the proposal from um you know while perspective index and

60. 34:11

    perspective and instead of maybe on these calls and I think that could probably go a long way and just making sure that like you know it does actually you know work for those other stakeholders that aren't here uh for whatever reason right yeah for sure we also run an index here so we can um uh give feedback on that on that side also that'll be fantastic thank you one of the things a lot of people have expressed uh especially with these are like it's kind of hard uh to to keep

61. 34:44

    track or if someone can go and like get give a like a synopsis of like the current reference implementation um and just so we can see kind of the complications and like maybe concerns that Vlad have I know you've been commenting with Uncle Tony in the past and kind of where it was left off on here uh so overall I think the the the the complication was around approval uh standardization because a pearl management

62. 35:13

    does it still does not exist for fungible tokens uh seems like unnecessarily complex area that like nobody will would pick up in the system so um with approval management there were a lot of questions in terms of just in like input arguments and output values what to expect and also on the callbacks uh whether to include um just tokens in in order just basically um expect that the list is matching the original order of the input

63. 35:52

    arguments or should it be a more complex object with key values so there are like more of the just concerns about the size of the payload and complication for the implementers to keep track of things and make sure that like when you submit something you you don't risk that they that the values will be misinterpreted either on the receiving side or in the return value so those were probably the main ones but the implementation was left

64. 36:33

    um I would say like it was almost there but there were things that just required more attention and again discussion around the like naming conventions and and stuff um the multi-token events uh were just for the context they were initially started as like let's do nft events but then um my team who which was uh working on the indexer indexing they not Network on Pagoda side uh was clearly not happy about the like mix of um two different standards uh colliding

65. 37:22

    on the naming so we quickly uh like requested the changes and uh from the events point of view they absolutely must be um like have have different naming because they are very different um like from the structure point of view um yeah that is a context basically um and from what I know Uncle Tony um wouldn't be able to proceed with this pull request so whoever um have the capacity needs to pick it up uh I was trying to um

66. 38:03

    keep doing him in ecosystem but he moved on already to um to his own uh startup so he's busy uh with the stuff so um that is piece of context probably you folks didn't know um and then going off what Marco said he was he was mentioning being able to to label this like uh and I think any any p351 was passed so can you give some context on that and how this could be used to uh label uh contract for a

67. 38:36

    standard is passed or sorry I didn't catch it can you say it again I think I think Marco was asking something that could be relevant to NEP 351 the contract Source metadata that was passed like a few months ago um could you kind of like outline that and how that can be used to label contracts that haven't been standardized yet for some context or do you mean the last comment because I don't see any references to

68. 39:06

    uh so just for the context naps uh 360 is about basically providing the metadata about the contract itself um so it's name version and supported standards so it's very Bare Bones but uh hopefully will be very helpful for the ecosystem in general so this is the way how um the clients could easily um derive information about the contract without just lurking and trying and failing executing certain methods so it will be just one method on the contract

69. 39:51

    that would you would call as a view function and receive a list of supported or assume like they they like they want to support those standards so it's you can guarantee but they can claim that they support them at least and this is a way we can um distinguish standards after all but it's not widely adopted in the in the ecosystem right now so that's why it's important to still keep the method names

70. 40:25

    um unique and I actually like the ERC 1155 naming conventions around the callbacks uh which actually they call them on year ERC 1155 received uh so actually that doesn't be very helpful for like a system to adopt I guess but it's a I think it's a different discussion um yeah that's all from my side you know yeah and more quickly but uh I I understand your concerns Uncle Tony actually has the bandwidth once we've figured out what a consensus might be uh to go forward development uh and he can

71. 41:06

    work on an async he just doesn't have time during the day for for the meeting so I think uh the biggest CTA for myself will be on a call with Uncle Tony and Alex look at what we've seen from The Reckless implementation from the community and from Lachlan as well as your concerns uh and maybe make a post on the NEP near gig board proposal board uh for anyone to comment and you know Alex and Uncle Tony can go back and

72. 41:30

    forth if there's anything from the wall perspective or indexer's perspective if we can come to consensus on what needs to be built um Uncle Tony and Alex as well as other people from the tenement team can can get this to the Finish Line uh it's just a matter of you know the last six weeks going back and forth and seeing what actually needs to be done what are the concerns and maybe would you recommend that bringing it to that NEP proposal board and looking for comment and and resolving comments and then maybe you

73. 41:53

    can get to a work contract working group and a wallet working group and then you know Uncle Tony and Alex and other people can take it to the Finish Line it's just the back and forth that Uncle Tony doesn't have time for right now I see well I'm all for having like concrete uh specific items to work on um I I'm not actively building anything with multiple empty so I was always advocating for um you folks who actually have the

74. 42:24

    experience to like to inform just as a standards team that well these are the concerns this is the limitations or security you know flaws in it like it seems like the approval management was at floor in the original standards and yeah I remember this comment from Uncle Tony when he where he basically outlined various issues he fixed along the way uh basically just that that is that there is a misalignment um between the the standard now in this

75. 43:08

    reference implementation which needs to be backboarded into the like into the standard no I I completely agree and Alex from that standpoint do you think uh if we had a sync with Uncle Tony uh posted Reckless implementation and monitor comments or what do you see as next steps and would that fulfill um your concerns Lachlan and getting the input from the not just the contract Community but also from The Wallace and

76. 43:32

    indexers on that GitHub um well from my perspective is uh we probably just you want to have this vaccinated in the uh documentation side because right now it still says that it's work in progress so we can kind of have a finalization one or 0.1 that you can say hey it's not a draft anymore to have a working proposal here you know address anything any of these concerns they're still in any remaining and Magellan could move to see

77. 44:18

    so that's how I see it just uh kind of uh passing milestone um again with Uncle Tony because I can work as a uh we're starting to fix individual issues like the thing is not uh we're alive obviously not working full-time just on this so we want to see specific guidance from the community or what because we are actually need rather than just one for their use cases so it can also be focused awesome

78. 45:07

    oh yeah I think we just want to talk professional so I think there's enough questions okay this looks good enough uh we need to address these two or three questions and then we're good yeah we're gonna do that like what we want to think sounds good to me it does seem to me like it would be really helpful to have some kind of asynchronous discussion or or you know post on the gates that we've mentioned just that people can you know continue to hash out these concerns we can kind of have things in a record that does

79. 45:41

    kind of seem like there is there is a need for some kind of standard it seems to me it's kind of the opinions but we need to just have some great steps forward sorry not fully technical so I can't understand the entire discussion but I just want to make sure that people are seeing things moving no I agree with that maybe if you could send the recording so I can review it with Alex and Uncle Tony and like I

80. 46:05

    mentioned we can get it to that big board and then respond async uh moving forward and then hopefully uh that addresses some of lachlan's concerns so we can get the feedback from not just his index or other indexers and then how it's going to display in the wallets I think that's the best way to move it forward over the next seven 14 days if there's still a blocker maybe there's a

81. 46:23

    need for another call with representation but I think comment and response on that gig board um for the NEP will be the way to move it forward address concerns and then we can do it async and that fits better with Uncle Tony schedule with Alex's schedule and then we can you know get a threshold and move forward does that sound like a plan to you Lachlan yeah sounds good okay that that's all from from my side on the MTS I know that took up a majority of the time is there uh the

82. 46:53

    next former business Maxwell uh today we're really just here to talk about multi-topen standard uh we do have another 10 minutes if anybody else has things to bring up but I think that this is probably a conclusion for now it of course would be really helpful to start getting input from you know wallet Builders indexers and those sorts because it does seem that that's to be like that those are

83. 47:17

    the people who are missing from these these calls and it would be very helpful to to know if there are any if there are any concerns from any of those people but for now I think um moving this to an async discussion makes the most sense to me okay and over the next day or two once you have the recording if you could send that to me I kind of want to sync with Uncle Tony on Saturday to try to get something up by Monday and then async will be any

84. 47:42

    everyone's time is is mindful of course and and we will be posting this video we're about to jump on a 13-hour flight so I can't promise it'll be in the next 24 hours but within the next 48th I'll be trying to get that up then I'll post it in the uh telegram area as soon as it is so oh that's amazing thank you very much and have a great flight Sean yeah I got from like unrelated questions but in terms of like just contracts in general uh is is there a

85. 48:20

    Sputnik V4 by chance like is there anybody that's like dedicated towards like upgrading the contract or is that something that the community would uh need to need to like uh do or like do you have any insight on that by chance I've been wondering no I mean I I only heard about this putting before his reference to like next-gen uh with no concrete um timelines so I don't know anything about it but I'll like in general just there is a

86. 48:53

    rule of thumb if anybody needs it um feel free to pick it up and like add the features you need and Pitch it to the community and like that's where where we meet and what we where we discuss things not everything needs to be standardized that's also important thing like Sputnik Dao is still not standardized there was an attempt to standardize the interfaces but they they it's it's so big and the

87. 49:24

    the the attempt wasn't very fruitful to be honest it was very like early on with no specific method name like me to it basically and uh that actually brings us to to the table that well we kind of need the standard in the future but so far we can with one reference implementation we can do um continue in in this way with with SpongeBob tokens with nft with mt it's more urgent for sure because there are plenty of different players in the in the space

88. 50:04

    and there are plenty of different clients and this mix is impossible to maintain without a standards uh with uh with putting down one contract so far we can live with it for a while and uh and then also I had some questions about like just Pagoda like timeline I saw some stuff about like account extensions and multi-contract accounts do you have any like kind of foresight on like when that would be implemented or uh yeah and like what that means for like people who are like you know developing Factory contracts or

89. 50:37

    things like that I cannot comment on that to be honest but I I only have very high level um knowledge about it um well all you can find in in the in the naps uh and I believe there is a public roadmap of pagoda where they at least the the the this sync contract sync accounts account extensions that's how they call it um it's it's on the roadmap so you can look it up but I I don't have it um from the top of my head I don't

90. 51:16

    remember the plan there it's it's I believe it's on the product called red road map so and that was very very detailed I believe in in terms of timelines yeah I I saw it there and it was it was kind of a teaser I haven't been able to get any answers on like what that what that means and also like you mentioned like 351 not being widely adopted and then also like but being passed are there any other like naps that have been passed that need to uh need to be adopted and like how can the community

91. 51:47

    like what should the community like do about it like if you can yeah that's a good question yeah we will need to do a better job on of communicating and keeping it uh up to date in the I don't know like probably we'll need to revisit the Naps readme file with the table not only referencing the maps but also referencing the implementation of the maps and that will probably help us to be on the same page and understand

92. 52:20

    what are the missing gaps here and there so if anybody wants to Champion it that would be awesome I'm specifically like I will share the link but I mean in the chat naps repo if you scroll down you see that there is net number title author and status which is not very helpful because status is always like merged essentially if not it Just not properly updated there so this status column is useless you can replace it with implemented and the references

93. 53:01

    to PRS or um like SDK feature documentation for example right um well if that's everything for today uh I'll be posting the summary and recording the next couple days um and again please do continue the discussion in the telegram and hopefully we can get those posts to the Dev go for shortly so we can get uh things moving along on this multifocent standard because it does seem like this is a need that people do see us being familiar all right

94. 53:47

    thanks Maxwell yes everybody hope to see you again soon thank you everybody I appreciate uh everyone's time today cheers thank you take care bye-bye