1

We are building an asset onboarding & tenancy platform and each asset is unique. We have designed it to use the uniques-pallet. The change that we require on top of this pallet are:

  1. The NFT is owned by multiple accounts.
  2. The NFT-asset share are transferable, tradable and are used for future governance regarding that specific asset.
  3. (optional) The NFT asset to have its own treasury(accountID that can hold funds)

The flow: A seller onboards an asset and if all checks pass the asset will belong to a set of selected investors. We need to make the NFT divisible and give the investors their share of the NFT and the ownership of the NFT has to switch to the total amount of fractioned shares.

Question: Asking the substrate community for design help that makes as much as possible use of the frame pallet in the substrate repository.

Our idea would be to add the asset-pallet in the runtime that introduces the fungible tokens and after a successful sale of the NFT the fungible tokens are distributed as shares to the investors. This however leaves the ownership requirement still open. This would be covered by an on-chain registry that creates accountID's that corresponds to the specific asset_id of the fungible shares.

All feedback, idea's and links are welcome.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

This is something Unique Network (not to be confused with uniques-pallet) did as "refungible", and something we at RMRK do as "NFTs as DAOs" (full breakdown here), short version here.

Since uniques-pallet is currently implemented on Statemine/Statemint which also has assets for custom tokens, this only requires a linking logic between an NFT being minted and it being locked as collateral to create a custom asset, instead of using KSM as collateral.

This should be a relatively easy update to make to the code, but since it is kind of out of scope for the common-good parachain that is Statemine/Statemint, I am a little skeptical of it making it in. In any case, I think this is more a matter of upgrading assets pallet to support NFTs as collateral, rather than upgrading uniques-pallet directly.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thank you for pointing out the options. Goal is not to change the uniques pallet but to come-up with how to best complement the uniques pallet. If I get your last sentence right for a pure pallet implementation your proposing that the NFT created should be collatoral and the assets-pallet should hand out the shares. How would you go about he owner/issuer accountId ? Would that be a virtual account in the runtime that is entitled to do these operations ? Is that even possible ?
    – Ilhan
    Commented Jul 29, 2022 at 19:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.