[Consensus] Allow unique assets to the root

[jeroz1]

I’d like to request allowing unique assets at the root.

This would

• Drop the minimum requirement to make a unique asset from 505 to 5 RVN, lowering the bar for making NFTs
• Make unique assets “more unique”.
• Allow creation of permissionsless accounts for any kind of service determined by the ipfs content, such as PGP accounts, subscriptions to permissionless communkcation systems, etc

An alternative for permissionless accounts is giving everyone admin rights to an non-reissuable main asset, which seems, to me, more complex to implement and more restrictive to use.

[HyperPeek]

Interesting Idea. This would probably have to be implemented as a separate Asset type, as the current "unique" requires a root asset upon creation https://github.com/RavenProject/Ravencoin/blob/9def8ed6b5aa6f8d6aa3a53436197233941d7e17/src/assets/assets.cpp#L956 This probably means a fork, so I added that tag as well.

[m4r1m0]

I think this is a great idea. Reducing the cost for unique asset creation should not put too much strain on the network considering their inherent lack of fungibility, and lowering the barrier to entry is great for decentralization/adoption.

[soullesscomputerboy]

From my understanding, main assets were meant to have a somewhat prohibitive cost, as to allow enough names to be created over time. I suspect that by creating root unique assets this cheap, many will be bought up immediately for hoarding purely for the names. This already happens with domain names, Ethereum name service, even online forums/games where people create accounts to have and sell "OG" names. This also does not incentivize artists, or other NFT creators to buy a main asset. I think there should be some type of incentive for that because minting under a main asset does not take up any more root unique asset names/main asset names from other people.

I think at a minimum, if root unique assets are created they should have a cost that is less than a sub asset, but more than a current unique asset. 25 RVN is still quite affordable for NFTs and makes more sense to me. If someone doesn't want to pay the main asset fee and wants to take up a root unique asset name they should have to pay for it. This is still a reasonable enough price that many people could afford to mint one even if RVN hit $1-$2. If someone could not afford to pay that price, there are already asset creation services that will mint a unique asset for you at network cost (RVNFT.art).

Overall I would rather root unique assets not exist for the reasons already stated. I think it devalues some of the effort people have already put into Ravencoin assets. Though I do see the advantages, especially for on-boarding new users.

[MangoFarmAssets]

I like the idea of unique assets without a main. There are many use cases that could have a need for inexpensive, non-reissuable assets. With that said, the benefits and economics of holding a main asset include the right to own the root of the name and issue an unlimited number of unique assets under that root.

Consider whether it makes sense to create a new asset type along the lines of what @HyperPeek os saying using a free regex character at root to facilitate the creation of inexpensive assets without owning a main like —MY_NFT.

The burn for this asset type could be set at greater than 5 RVN (say, 10) as @soullesscomputerboy suggests above, and provide an inexpensive solution for those who wish to make uniques without a main, but without conveying the root naming rights or other benefits that go along with owning a main.

There has been much discussion on these issues and many points of view. What is clear from the discussions is that there is a need for a solution like this. It is also clear (to me) that such a solution cannot and should not change the economics of main asset ownership. The above is one proposal that addresses the need without tripping the downside.

These new assets could even be called … wait for it … NFTs. 😉