Where is the EXT NFT standard defined?

Does someone know where details about the EXT NFT standard are defined? In particular, I’m looking for the implementation of the lock and settle methods that are used in their NFT canisters (e.g. here).

I know there is the github repository of toniqlabs which contains various examples of the implementation of the EXT standard. However, these don’t seem to be the actual ones that are implemented on Entrepot.

Both methods, lock and settle, that are used for all Entrepot NFTs (see BTCflower canister here), are missing in the repository. Also, the ext.did.js that they provide in the Entrepot repository is different from the examples on the EXT repo.

Taken from the Entrepot repository, the purchasing process is two steps:

  1. They lock and transfer the ICP in some address that belongs to them.
  2. Then they settle the transaction with the settle method and thereby transfer 94% to the seller, 5% to the creator as royalties, and 1% to themselves as fees. It is not clear to me what happens inside the settle method and how the fee address can be defined.

I was wondering that if someone wants to trade these NFTs not on Entrepot but on some other platform, the 1% fee will always go to Entrepot as there is no way to define the fee address. Am I missing something or is this the case?

An example of a transaction is below that shows the transfers of the temporary address where the ICP are locked before being settled.

2 Likes

You likely wont get an answer here. tonic are suffering from their onw success. the idea that they are an open-source shop is laughable. they havent released anything and what they have opensource is months old. their new canisters have methods like _new _newnew _lastone _newnewpromisenew, and so on. it is laughable. but they are the biggsest player in the nft game and nobody will criticize them publicly because they want in on the money train.

1 Like

hey, i wrote the btc flower canister code and yes, your assumption is correct. we wan’t to move to a different model though were the person listing the nft decides who get’s the royalties and how many percent.

Yes, I agree. Ideally, the standard would allow the creator to set one or multiple royalty addresses and the platform that lists the NFT for trading could define an address for the fees.
When you’re saying you want to move to a different model, do you already have something in mind?

1 Like

when a seller lists her NFT she get’s to decide the marketplace fee and the address that should receive that fee. the fee would be a percentage of the listing price within some boundaries (maybe 0%-2%). when a user lists the nft on an exchange, those fields would be filled by the exchange obviously. it allows and incentivsises everyone to build frontends marketplaces that support different nft canisters.