Update EIP-4974: Community Feedback

[dtedesco1]

trafficstars

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[eth-bot]

All tests passed; auto-merging...

(pass) eip-4974.md

classification
updateEIP

• passed!

(pass) assets/eip-4974/ERC4974.sol

classification
ambiguous

• file assets/eip-4974/ERC4974.sol is associated with EIP 4974; because there are also changes being made to EIPS/eip-4974.md all changes to corresponding assets are also allowed

(pass) assets/eip-4974/IERC4974.sol

classification
ambiguous

• file assets/eip-4974/IERC4974.sol is associated with EIP 4974; because there are also changes being made to EIPS/eip-4974.md all changes to corresponding assets are also allowed

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[github-actions[bot]]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[dtedesco1]

I suggest the following wording change. Your standard is generic enough to be used for more than just ratings :)

@Pandapip1 What do you think after the latest update? I actually think EXP is just a subset of Ratings--we're going for a bigger concept than just a new type of token.

[Pandapip1]

Just a reminder - "token" doesn't mean what I think you think it means. This is describing fungible (if I have 1 rating and you have 1 rating, we have the same rating, whereas if you have one SBT and I have one SBT, we don't necessarily have the same SBT) non-transferable (self-explanatory) tokens (see above two definitions).

I highly suggest you consider titling this "Fungible Non-Transferable Tokens"

[dtedesco1]

Just a reminder - "token" doesn't mean what I think you think it means. This is describing fungible (if I have 1 rating and you have 1 rating, we have the same rating, whereas if you have one SBT and I have one SBT, we don't necessarily have the same SBT) non-transferable (self-explanatory) tokens (see above two definitions).

I highly suggest you consider titling this "Fungible Non-Transferable Tokens"

Thanks, @Pandapip1. I take your point that the definition of tokens includes a concept like ratings.

I spoke with @SamWilsn about this at Office Hours and I want to stick with 'rating' as the terminology, because that's the most concrete and commonsense description of what this standard does. A name like 'Fungible Non-Transferable Tokens' is ambiguous, as it could imply concepts like totalSupply, minting, and burning, which don't make sense in the context of this standard or ratings more generally.

[Pandapip1]

Auto-merge failed to trigger again it appears. Clopening.