Love it!
Hoping to build on the discussion framework you created, I’ll share a few ideas, given my knowledge of existing patterns and solutions.
To choose/generate a solution that satisifies the Near ecosystem needs, we understand our vision of a world where all people have control of their data, money, and power of governance. How can multi-tokens help us achieve that goal? Why are they necessary?
Fungibility is just one spectrum of possible token designs, and I believe combining the interfaces would result in opportunities for adoption by wallets and exchanges. Not only can these more complex structures provide greater accountability for everyone using NEAR apps.
I agree that ability to make batch requests with multiple asset classes is a killer feature, and I’m so excited to explore all kinds of use cases for multi-tokens! For example, reputation is a complex idea requiring many levels to define properly, and nobody has really succeeded in developing a legitimate credit system for the open web. My feeling is it has to be validated on the network of participants representing themselves with accounts.
Responding to your questions:
- I think we should follow the same pattern as the NFT and FT standards, although I wonder if there is a need for matching ERC-1155. Considering ERC-20 tokens can be converted into NEP-141 tokens across the bridge, I guess ERC-1155 tokens could also interoperate.
- GNR8 is the best reference implementation for a kind of multi-token on NEAR, as far as I know. I’m curious to explore how account storage relates to dealing with unique identifiers of token IDs across classes / namespaces. Everyone has their own settings
One thing I’d potentially bring up is the mysterious ERC-888 standard…
mapping (address => mapping (string => uint)) balances;
This weird loop might be useful in contextualizing systems for imbued value.