Update hip-0000-fractional-nfts.md

HIP/hip-0000-fractional-nfts.md

@@ -16,35 +16,55 @@ updated: N/A
 
 This HIP specifies the need for fractional NFTs within the Hedera eco-system, the purview for this capability is specifically viewed through the lens of ESG assets, such as tokenised carbon credits, to be fractional when primarily created through the Guardian. As ESG assets created are unique they philosophically act more like an NFT as compare to fungible counterparts as they are backed by a real-world asset that is not interchangeable.
 
-Additionally, this HIP suggests a specification update for adding this capability, simply put to enable decimals within NFT token types. It also includes a view to deal with backwards capability issues for NFT token transfers.
+Additionally, this HIP suggests a specification update for adding this capability, simply put to enable decimals with a new token type of Fractional Non Fungible. It also includes a view to deal with backwards capability issues for NFT token transfers.
 
-Naturally, outside the scope of ESG, fractional NFTs would be highly welcome in many other use cases on the network as they are present on EVM ecosystems.
+Naturally, outside the scope of ESG, fractional NFTs would be highly welcome in many other use cases on the network as they are present on EVM ecosystems. However, there are challenges of colliding, triggering unknown side effects, with the current NFT ecosystem present on network so we need to tread carefully.
 
 ## Motivation
 
+The digitial world is moving in a direction whereby all of the things will be tokenised, although we have the tools at our disposal for tokenisation that is a gap that needs addressing, the capibility to map real-life living breathing entities into a system that is capable to detecting changes over time.
+
+To understand our background, in early 2021, DOVU productised a concept known as dynamic NFTs (dNFTs) by combining tokenisation and consensus services into our carbon credits so that we could map an area of land to a token and continually prove the evolution of an entity over time through evidence and documentation, this became the basis for our marketplace.
+
+In the context of DOVU, we have focused on soil being the second largest source of carbon sequestion, but the most accessible. Although not perfect, this stance of tokenisation helped us go to market and to allow us to sell offsets until which time our Guardian tech was ready.
+
+The Guardian for us is an important step as our goal is to build the trust layer for carbon offset integrity, that is to have a transparent and pipeline or policy engine from project onboarding to retirement. Guardian tech provides an ability for us to connect decentralised identity to our pipeline, so that every actor will sign off with their specific authority. This also ties into following IWA specifications for tokenising carbon in a correct and compliant fashion, as ecological projects.
+
+The story for many other ESG projects on Hedera has many similarities.
+
+Back to the real-world, the view of a real-life evoving asset granularity is key, there could be any number of effects and interesting behaviour with carbon credits, for example:
+
+Land geography can change the density of which carbon can be sequestered.
+Specific areas are at higher risk of “leakage” effects.
+Crop rotation or a migration to a regenative agreculture approach will have different effects across an area of land.
+
+All in all, the more granular about a project the more varience in value there is, the credits that are produced at a sub/fractional area could be deemed to be lower risk and more effective, thus in markets be considered to be of a higher value. As a secondary measure, granular tracking provides
+
 One of the current downsides of NFTs on Hedera are that they are incapable of having decimals, or in other words fractional. Particularly for ESG assets, like carbon credits, this is a particular problem as it becomes impossible to make micro payments due to the lack of fractional or divisable NFTs upon creation, is where one token equals one tonne of carbon.
 
 If we so wish to mint fractional tokens for emissions or credits at a sub-tonne granularity we require divisible NFTs on token creation.
 
 Here are some additional points:
 
-- Partial ownership/division of NFTs is already a thing in EVM land, the network should align with common patterns.
-- It would be preferable to mirror specifications like CRUs (as NFTs) as Hashport has NFT bridge capability, thus all guardian derived ESG assets would be multi-chain by default.
-  - This would inevitably open up easier business development and integration between ecosystems, so DOVU’s generated credits could potentially be bundled into FlowCarbon’s GNT-type assets.
-  - Thus there would be a greater vector for pooling assets to back stable coins using a range of tokenised commodities (carbon, soya, wheat etc).
-- We’re not going to get away from the need for micropayments, KG-level (or less) offsetting.
-- In traditional markets, or centralised registries like Gold Standard, a carbon credit represents 1 tonne of removal or reduction. Without this and by potentially going against the grain by minting where 1 token equals 1 kg will result in non-compliant and non-standardised assets, as well as causing additional onboarding friction for external market actors due to the mismatch.
-- All tokens are backed by a real asset (NFTs fit that definition moreso then fungible types)
-- To be compliant to the IWA Framework for minting carbon removals with fractional granularity we currently need to use Core Carbon Principles (CCP) token instead of the NFT equivalent, Carbon Removal Credits (CRUs).
+Partial ownership/division of NFTs is already a thing in EVM land, the network should align with common patterns.
+It would be preferable to mirror specifications like CRUs (as NFTs) as Hashport has NFT bridge capability, thus all guardian derived ESG assets would be multi-chain by default.
+This would inevitably open up easier business development and integration between ecosystems, so DOVU’s generated credits could potentially be bundled into FlowCarbon’s GNT-type assets.
+Thus there would be a greater vector for pooling assets to back stable coins using a range of tokenised commodities (carbon, soya, wheat etc).
+We’re not going to get away from the need for micropayments, KG-level (or less) offsetting.
+In traditional markets, or centralised registries like Gold Standard, a carbon credit represents 1 tonne of removal or reduction. Without this and by potentially going against the grain by minting where 1 token equals 1 kg will result in non-compliant and non-standardised assets, as well as causing additional onboarding friction for external market actors due to the mis-smatch.
+All tokens are backed by a real asset (NFTs fit that definition moreso then fungible types)
+To be compliant to the IWA Framework for minting carbon removals with fractional granularity we currently need to use Core Carbon Principles (CCP) token instead of the NFT equivalent, Carbon Removal Credits (CRUs).
 
-Leveraging Hashport as a key piece of infrastructure in ensuring that any ESG asset minted on Hedera is multi-chain (EVM) by default would be a killer application network-wide for both marketplaces, exchanges, and project owners to get access to more capital present on other networks.
+Leveraging Hashport as a key piece of infrastructure in ensuring that any ESG asset minted on Hedera through the Guardian is multi-chain (EVM) by default would be a killer application network-wide for both marketplaces, exchanges, and project owners to get access to more capital present on other networks.
 
 
 ## Rationale
 
 In short, enable optional decimal usage on the creation of NFTs token types and add optional values for transfer functions.
 
-With regards to Hashport's NFT bridging capability, it at present can only process a single NFT at a time, this would be a challenge for larger volumes of ESG assets but if a precedent was set by minting tokens with this method it would provide a provable route for migration of NFT collections across networks, perhaps with a specific ESG bridging module.
+To remove potential side effects with the core NFT community a new token type is recommended to describe fractional NFTs.
+
+With regards to Hashport's NFT bridging capability, it at present can only process a single NFT at a time, this would be a challenge for larger volumes of ESG assets but if a precedent was set by minting tokens with this method it would provide a provable route for migration of NFT collections across networks, perhaps with a specific ESG or Fractional bridging module.
 
 ## User stories
 
@@ -60,14 +80,16 @@ Below the specification will be focusing upon using with the JS SDK as a develop
 
 ### Creating a NFT, with the adding of decimals to the Create Transactions
 
-The only difference here is *unlocking* decimals for NFTs, inside of any documentation we can refer to them as *fractional*, but we retain the same method names as per fungible token types.
+There are two differences here, first *unlocking* decimals for NFTs, inside any documentation we can refer to them as *fractional*, but we retain the same method names as per fungible token types.
+
+The second, is to provide a new entity TokenType of FractionalNonFungibleUnique, so that it won’t affect the current NFT infrastructure on Hedera.
 
 
 ```
 const transaction = new TokenCreateTransaction()
   .setTokenName(collection_name)
   .setTokenType(TokenType.NonFungibleUnique)
-  .setSupplyType(TokenSupplyType.Finite)
+  .setSupplyType(TokenSupplyType.Infinite)
   .setSupplyKey(operatorPrivateKey)
   .setTokenSymbol(symbol)
   .setTreasuryAccountId(account_id)
@@ -124,13 +146,23 @@ New `addNftTransfer(<nftId>, <sender>, <receiver>, <value = 1 (default if not ch
 
 However, in particular SDK implementations, like JS, there are at present 4 fields within the signature of the `addNftTransfer` method which is on the cusp of being overloaded, there would need to be careful thought on whether it would be more appropriate to refractor some of these methods, or to include the optional `value` property inside of an `nftId` object.
 
-### Wallets and downstream clients
+### Wallets and downstream clients
 
 All wallets or clients may behave in the same manner to view or manipulate NFTs, using the same code, however for fractional NFTs there would be a requirement to update codebases to handle updated decimal, in the same way fungible tokens are processed.
 
 ## Security Implications
 
-None, other than NFTs working in the same fashion as using decimals on Fungible token types.
+We have opted for a new token type as of the unknown side effects on the current Hedera NFT community.
+
+From Patches perspective on the effect on the NFT Hedera community:
+
+> Just like we have a different token type for fungible tokens, I think there should be a different token type for Fractionlized Non Fungible Tokens or FNFTs
+> 
+> A lot of infrastructure that's being built or that is already in place for NFTs has an understanding that 1 serial # = 1 entity / 1 wallet.
+> 
+> Injecting the possibility of there being 1 serial number on 1 token Id that can be in multiple wallets would cause a lot of systems to need to be refactored, headaches for possible scams and exploits
+> 
+> Segmenting this update out into it's own type of token would allow clearer delineation, and remove the chance an ADMIN key could later segment out multiple fractions of an already minted NFT in circulation
 
 ## How to Teach This
 
@@ -152,7 +184,7 @@ The approach that EVM-based solutions take is through using smart contracts, by
 1. [IWA Framework](https://interwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Digital-MRV-Framework-1.0.pdf)
 2. [NFT porting Hashport](https://app.hashport.network/nft-port)
 3. [What are fractional NFTs?](https://learn.bybit.com/nft/what-are-fractional-nfts/)
-
+4. [dNFT DOVU Specification - feb 2021](https://github.com/trustenterprises/hedera-dnft-specification)
 
 ## Copyright/license