We weren’t aware of this. Good to know. Thx 
Did anyone even suggest using IBC… Am I missing something?
1 Like
The bridge will be based on IBC Eureka
If you want my vote, make a proposal again with funding shared between the NFT chains, and a participation from the hub that does not exceed 50% of the amount requested and you request this amount with the USDC from the community pool.
Ark is whitelisted on the hub, deploy an NFT app on it, ask for funding and that better
ok so the previous proposal didn’t even get enough votes to achieve quorum, which is just great.
I will read more carefully the new version next week, although at first glance I’m still not convinced it’s worth the cost.
I appreciate that you mention that NFTs can be corporate documents and not just profile pictures, but I am skeptic that there will be much demand at this time and this costly bridge may sit mostly idle for a long period.
It would help if the project was based on a market study or something, with estimates of the expected usage and revenue.
In its current form, it’s about shelling out $90k then $50k more for an audit, without any idea of the ROI for the Hub.
(I’ve gone through the discussion and did not find mention of such study, my apologies if I missed it actually)
We’ve adjusted our proposal. Summary here (or check update on top): https://x.com/arkprotocol/status/1948913396549665235
Ask has been stripped down to $90k USDC (instead of $200k in ATOM). It now only covers dev part. We’ll check audits later and cover initial operations on our own. We’ll look for other chains to fund this - BUT pls note that the bridge is $ATOM aligned, hence by using IBC Eureka all transfers goes through the Hub! So not sure whether other chains are going to fund this, since $ATOM benefits from this the most.
2 Likes
Hey, ser! Good point. There arent many studies out there. From an NFT market perspective you can check this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/nft/global-stats
Current global NFT marketcap is at $6B USD. It doubled since last 4 weeks.
Pls also check Cryptocito’s interview with Mag, basically it is a bet by onboarding major players like Ripple, TAC and financial institutions for adopting the Cosmos stack, with 2 USP’s: a) sovereignity (allowing them to run their own custom Cosmos chain) and b) interoperability (using IBC Eureka).
Mag also notes that many customers/enterprises cares more about running their business (by using dApps) - rather than interested into crypto currencies in the first place. By using the Cosmos stack, they will be able easily connect and exchange data with other dApps and blockchains. IBC Eureka is just an application layer for sending data in a secure and safe way. The bridge allows enterprises/dApps sending data as an NFT to another chain - OUT OF THE BOX. This way dApp developers dont need to take care of this and focus on building their business features - it’s a no-brainer for them using a bridge:
- send data to bridge
- provide target chain
- provide target contract (dApp) or wallet
That’s it, dApp even gets a confirmation, once data received.
1 Like
Okay for me, you got my vote.
1 Like
Thank YOU, ser!
This should be a 4/6 multisig and not a 3/6.
1 Like
Good point, will change.
Updated: DAO DAO
I have worked over this between Cosmos chains, the NFT was successfully sent but i also want that the price, max_supply, etc details can also be send. Has anyone worked over it?
Along with NFT metadata - collection metadata is also send over. We’ve added this to ics721 spec and our bridge has implemented it.