Bumblefudge

> we don't need it to prove NFT ownership on Ethereum for example, so I'm not sure it should be a requirement. Right, EVM and ERC721 make it pretty easy/standardized...

FWIW I threw up [two strawmen](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/pull/221), but it's probably not worth looking at until the attestation-use-case folks have had a look, they might well bring breaking changes or a complete...

NB ntn-x2: [attestate](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CASA/pull/69/files) just joined and another onchain attestation project [proposed a CAIP](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs/issues/208) so i think we have quorum for a new working group? particularly if @vallexyz has bandwidth to...

@oed i think this is because CAIP-19 is only for addressing tokens, whereas on-chain attestations are written into metadata. I'm thinking all the "transaction / NFT / block metadata" usecases...

> We already use CAIP-19 for NFTs. I don't understand why we would need a new standard for non-trasferable NFTs (attestations, metadata, etc). If the wording "Token" is confusing we...

> Should we need two different specs to refer to Ethereum-based and Polkadot-based chains? If Cosmos needs one, we would have another one for Cosmos? No, one CAIP describes the...

Thanks for those clarifications, OED! I'm having trouble figuring out where the confusion is, and hopefully not over-explaining the obvious. A non-breaking clarification PR to CAIP-19 would be welcome, as...

Jinx, @Oed hit "comment" sooner and said the same thing more succintly haha

> Last time I went through the document it wasn't as clear, hence my confusion. It's almost like our conversations informed the subsequent editorial PRs 😉

NB @TimDaub -- ~~maybe a picnic meeting in Tempelhoferfeld is in order?~~ nevermind, thought we were all Berlin-based at the moment. Will have to be a teleconference!