Right so I have not explained it correctly actually. The original NFT, minted by the creator from the creator address on the native chain, will always continue to exist but will be locked on the bridge when it’s moved across to another chain. A new version of it will then be minted on the new chain where the meta data is copied across and a proof of authenticity tag will be included to refer back to the locked original. This new version on the new chain can then be treated or traded as usual backed by the locked original.
The new NFT can also be moved between chains, but it won’t be locked like the original and cannot be recovered. Only 1 copy will ever be in existence in addition to the original. So the first bridge, is lock and mint. Any subsequent 2nd or 3rd bridge is burn and mint. If the owner of the copy would want to move back to the original chain, you can do so and the copy is then burned and the original unlocked.
The creator account question I need to check with the devs if that’s a unique Messina creator account, or if there is some other solution where there is different creator accounts. My assumption is there will be 1 unique creator account operated by the bridge.
I don’t fully understand your question about losing the ASA ID and creator account.
Thanks for the inputs! Every time the NFT is moved to another network, the meta data will be copied.
However, the original will always be locked on the birth chain, so if you move back to that original, it will unlock the original without the changes you may have done to the metadata on another chain.
Cheers! My question about ASA ID was related to the mint and burn NFT standard mentioned - it sounded like through this standard you’d have to burn the original to bridge as “only one unique NFT to ever be alive on chain at the same time” - then if bridged back a new NFT would be created (assumingly under a Messina controlled account and with a new ASA ID). But it sounds like it’s actually a case where the original is just locked in an escrow.
The creator account question is really related to the usefulness of a global bridge solution like this. If a creator decided they wanted to bridge say 50% of their assets to try a new eco - there’s almost zero incentive for them to do so if they don’t have ownership of the creator account/bridged assets on the new chain - and resulting royalties etc. It sounds like they wouldn’t? Or is there a solution that considers this? Say can a creator make the destination account that all bridged assets from a specified collection are minted to? Without a system like that it would make it almost exclusively a user bridge - and historically they’ve had very little adoption.
Typically creators build custom migration solutions for this reason
which algorand NFT standards will you support, does that include multimints and fractionals
how are royalties going to be handled on the “target” chain
how are collections / creators handled
There is a lot of stuff that portal bridge(wormhole) and xpnetwork both do right in this regard, asnd as some pointed out before me, royalties and the creator rights are a big deal in NFT space. there is very little point in bridning a NFT to eth or vice-versa, if it won’t be treated as part of the XYZ collection.there.
You’re right. That should have said “one copy” is ever alive on chain. The original will continue to exist and can always be returned to by whoever owns the copy that contains the proof of authenticity.
Royalties are dealt with differently across ecosystems and marketplaces individually. Opensea for example removed the embedded royalty process if I’m correct and now using tips, MagicEden is using some sort of royalty registry where you register the receiver address, and EXA market is using a more traditional method of baked in royalties during the minting process.
When you’re dealing with a bridge across up to a dozen networks and even more marketplaces across those ecosystems, it’s hard to take into account every opinion about royalties. Some would say royalties are a must, some would say a buyer is a buyer and royalties are no more than a friendly gesture. Some will have opinions in between.
The incentive to bring collections into other ecosystems I’d say is project growth and expanding your community to new holders without launching an entirely new collection, which is then stuck on that new network and you can’t mixup your collections or create cross over activity between holders on different ecosystems. The main incentive for a creator would be mobility of NFTs and therefor access to a bigger audience.
Do you have any references for any of these custom build migration solutions? I’m curious to learn how a creator may have build a multi chain mobile NFT collection across various networks, while also considering this royalty and creator account stuff. If someone has managed to create that already, then let’s definitely promote and amplify that instead.
I actually got excited when I first saw this Bridge XP, and if it would work - depending on how their methods are - our bridge wouldn’t be a whole lot different. I tried to use it for Algorand and Polygon though and only got as far as this - and this wallet is full of NFTs. So I am not sure if it works.
Regarding royalties, I’d refer you to my response to Stitch. It depends on how the marketplace deals with it. Baked in royalties that tie to the creator address are not carried over. I can ask the devs to think about it, but I don’t really see a way of dealing with that at first thought.
How collections / creators are handled I don’t entirely know what you’re referring to. Do you mean like how a multi chain collection is registered and showcased on a marketplace of some sort? My simple response would be that it depends on the methods and process of registration of collections of said marketplace.
With regard to royalties im not sure opinion on them really matters, but how a bridged NFT behaves…
If you end up with NFTs that are not able to be verified by marketplaces, royalties (enforced or not) that are lost and sent to escrows and NFTs that don’t have any access to project utilities (on Algorand normally gated by creator wallets and/or a fixed database of ASA ID’s) you end up with very little use case/appeal for this kind of application.
Custom migrations have worked better - DeGods/y00ts being the main success story migrated from SOL to ETH/Poly (then Poly → ETH ). Tinyhorses have a custom solution to manage their project across Algo/XRP (you can burn/remint as much as you like between both chains). Gorcians built a migration solution to migrate from Algorand to Polygon - it worked as intended, altho project seems abandoned since…
The difference with these custom migration solutions is the creator keeps ownership/control of the accounts on both side of the bridge - which means they can enable utility from one chain to another, can verify project with marketplaces, receive royalties depending on marketplace policy etc…
An open ended bridge anywhere solution hasn’t found a market fit that I’ve seen - as they basically undo the properties that grant NFT ownership any benefits.
The royalties I’ll be honest, I am not too concerned with. Personally I have the, maybe unpopular opinion, that once a sale has taken place, the creator has earned their share. Secondary sales after that are on the open market and between the seller and the buyer.
Project benefits though I think is a better point. I agree when benefits like access to ecosystem features or airdrops are automatically tied to the creator address, this could be a problem when the creator address is the bridge account. I do think the creator, who would also be the one doing the bridging in this scenario, can probably figure it out based on asset IDs. But let me put this question to the devs and see what they think.
When you say they migrated, what was the method of migration in these cases? Lock and mint, burn and mint, what was the user interface like?
Either way, we need inputs like yours and other people that have been in the NFT creator space a long time and know what they need and what would work for them. So thanks for showing up!
Migration was slick and easy to use. y00ts especially as all the signing could be done from Phantom wallet. All migrations I’ve used are burn/mint. There’s no ‘original’ and ‘wrapped’ version.
There’s a reason they don’t use off the shelf tools like NFT bridges that I’ve already outlined.
Alright, so that’d be a one way, one time migration then more than a mobile bridge where you can go back and forth. I can’t immediately think of a reason to move back and forth other than secondary market activity and people moving somewhere else with their newly acquired NFTs, removing as many mobility barriers for digital assets as possible.
So I sympathise on the need for a creator to have control of the creator address to manage the collection, benefits, royalties if you may, and so on. In the current technical roadmap, the creator address on the EVM side would be the same for all mints, and on the AVM side the same story.
I admit I can see that becoming messy if any scaling were to take place and multiple collections start to bridge through the same creator address. We’ll give this some thought!
Exactly, and good luck with that secondary market activity with your unverifiable NFT that is either completely hidden in marketplaces or bulked together with hundreds of other bridged NFTs from random collections. After hyped new drops, daily/weekly secondary volume charts are king for discoverability… all gone with bridged NFTs - the increased liquidity/users you thought existed becomes completely inaccessible.
If you can come up with a solution that allows a creator to customise the bridge to be either one-way or two-way, and have owned creator accounts on both sides with the escrow SC in-between… then you start to get a useable tool.
Keep in mind tho that most would gravitate to chains with more users and such a tool could well shrink the Algo NFT eco instead of growing it
Reasons to migrate here are speed/fees: most applicable to gaming NFT market I would think.
Consolidating collections to a single wallet makes little sense to me: I’m a collector on multiple chains and have never felt like the need to take on bridge risk just to hold on a single chain as I’d invariably lose access to those communities and have to bridge back to trade anyway.
Will a smart contract be able to track sales on another chain just from stateproof and handle royalties lol? that would solve the creator account problem on the other chain. A NFT minter on algorand where it manages these NFTs on another chain sounds pretty cool for a creator.
Hi! You can do that already through our Messina.one token bridge. If there are any tokens you’re interested in bridging and think would do well on Algorand, let us know on Twitter or Telegram.
My apologies if this has been lost in the shuffle, but is there a way to make it so that an EVM creator address is somehow tied to the asset upon bridging? Would your proposal include that ability? I think it is important to include provenance when it comes to bridged NFTs.
Hi! This sort of happens through the proof of authenticity tag which is added to the metadata that includes data such as purchase history that is not part of the original metadata and it includes a reference to the original NFT on the mother chain. So through this tag, you can find the creator data also.
). Tinyhorses have a custom solution to manage their project across Algo/XRP (you can burn/remint as much as you like between both chains). Gorcians built a migration solution to migrate from Algorand to Polygon - it worked as intended, altho project seems abandoned since…