Closed acuarica closed 3 years ago
@Jshanks21: is it correct that arbitrary NEAT AccountID cannot mint a token by calling contract directly? So we have to implement a protection that minting is exclusively allowed only to MintGate Admin?
If this is true, then is also assumption correct that MintgGate Admin will act under the same account (or parent account) that deployed a contract? E.g. if contract is deployed to nft.mintgate.near, then nft.mintgate.near and mintgate.near will be authorized as Admins who can mint?
is it correct that arbitrary NEAT AccountID cannot mint a token by calling contract directly? So we have to implement a protection that minting is exclusively allowed only to MintGate Admin?
Correct
MintgGate Admin will act under the same account (or parent account) that deployed a contract? E.g. if contract is deployed to nft.mintgate.near, then nft.mintgate.near and mintgate.near will be authorized as Admins who can mint?
Correct
@Jshanks21 - may I ask why do you ask for: "The Admin (MintGate) will mint on behalf of Claimers. In this event, the Admin (MintGate) will call the mint function and pass the Claimer’s NEAR account that the token should be minted to."
Our current assumption is that Claimer User must have NEAR Account ID to claim the token and become an Owner for it, to be able to trade or gift it further. So it seems logical for us that Claimer User mints the token and pays for gas consumed.
What is the benefit of having AdminAccountID to be the only one who can claim tokens initially?
Closing, tested & demonstrated to client. Leftovers created as new item for M2. #51