Dan Connolly

This week I sort of got bit by this. The type-safe alternative, `deeplyFulfilledObject`, didn't work out either, though: https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/pull/6774/commits/eb26cb200f2c68d8a636380c871090fe4468f67fb3 part of: - https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/pull/6774

it's baaaack! these symptoms, that is #41 suggests I'm not the only one seeing this.

I use [TabCopy](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tabcopy/micdllihgoppmejpecmkilggmaagfdmb) for this, fwiw.

@fabcotech followed up on this in https://github.com/fabcotech/rchain-token/issues/4#issuecomment-737997438

Can that sort of NFT be owned by another contract? If you just use an ERTP style Mint to make the NFTs (#2), then it can. And auctions contracts compose...

dump/restore is definitely a challenge for unforgeable-name / ocap strategies. If that's a requirement, it wasn't explicit until now, AFAIK. Perhaps a benefit of this discussion was discovering it. Perhaps...

if the scope is file management and a name system, I suggest you reconsider the name "rchain-token"... or at least replace the 1st sentence of the readme: "Fungibles and non-fungibles...

Sending ERTP style tokens does, in general, require that someone has deployed something to receive the tokens. But just like the .rho contracts here are deployed before anyone interacts with...

> ... I don't know about MakeMint It's one page of code1. It's **much** simpler than the cryptographic stuff going on in these .rho contracts. Please, before we continue this...

Discussion above addressed #3 and made progress on #2; what remains of this issue, for me, is the difference in scope between - what's implied by the name rchain-token and...