Don't modify README.mediawiki when creating PR.

And don't assign NEP number by yourself. The NEP editor (that is, me) will assign the NEP number when the proposal is accepted.

And don't assign NEP number by yourself.

OK. Will change it soon

The word mortgage maybe inappropriate. Let us change it to collateral

The reason why the neo ecosystem is needing the new extended token standard is to combine the FT and NFT together in one system and decrease the expense of multiple times transfer transaction invocation. The other regulation this the collateral of the NFT. In most cases, the NFT should have value inside and the NEO token used as collateral makes it naturally has the value in the neo ecosystem.

Below is the explanation of NEP-5 token (sorry for my terrible drawing skill).

The NEO-5 token standard is great when the user wants to have some initial token offering and makes the basic type of smart economic available on the neo ecosystem. However, those tokens are fungible tokens which means there is still a scenario that we need to define digital items with identical ownership. Here comes the NEP-11 proposal which is the NFT standard in the neo ecosystem:

The purpose of the NEP-11 standard is to make the NFT available in the neo ecosystem. The NFT standard is different from NFT in the other blockchain is that the NEP-11 make the NFT is divisible.
This makes the NFT power it is kind of making the NFT also can be fungible when there is a specific case. However, this makes the developer such as Dapp/Wallets/Explorers difficult to the developer and maintain.

In addition, it also makes the transaction of some scenarios very expensive. Imaging in one game, you have a big car, then inside the car, each equipment is an NFT such as tire, exhaust pipe. So for such a case, you have to create a number of NFT contracts as per type. When the user exchanges the car to another account, you have two make two different transactions. It increases the fee of the transaction.

Here is the new design of the token standard that includes both the FT and NFT. The creator can first create a type of token. It can be FT or NFT. Once the token type is defined, the user can mint the related token. In such a way, one contract can manage the unlimited type of FT/NFT, and user can batch transfer both the NF and NFT in one transaction. The standard is compatible with the NEP-11 which is also managing each NFT as indivisible and can make the divisible ones as a fungible token.

Finally, here when minting the NFT, the user has to use at least one NEO as collateral. This is required for making the NFT has backing value. The backing valued NFT tokens represents unique digital or physical assets.

This is likely a good direction to move. Ethereum has shown some success in this regard with ERC-1155, with Enjin also moving in the direction of backing each item with another token (ENJ in their case) in order to "imbue" the NFT with value.

I think this is a very interesting proposal, especially if it possible to melt/burn the asset to retrieve the collateral. Say if a game goes offline and NFTs would become worthless; this means that the user can always get something back out of it.

One important change would be to use GAS for collateral instead of NEO. Indivisibility means that NEO does not have the required granularity for this use case, and we should not be locking the governance token into random NFTs, we should be encouraging NEO holders to use their NEO to vote.

Hello guys!
We at blockchaincuties have implemented something similar to the proposed standard.
However, we got issues with methods like tokensOf, because it can be too expensive to read the whole storage. From my point of view, contract interface looks good, but need more technical details how to implement batchTransfer and other things to make it cost efficient.

As i understand type is part of the token id?

Hello guys!
We at blockchaincuties have implemented something similar to the proposed standard.
However, we got issues with methods like tokensOf, because it can be too expensive to read the whole storage. From my point of view, contract interface looks good, but need more technical details how to implement batchTransfer and other things to make it cost efficient.

Yes, that's why enumeration should be done through the events.

This is likely a good direction to move. Ethereum has shown some success in this regard with ERC-1155, with Enjin also moving in the direction of backing each item with another token (ENJ in their case) in order to "imbue" the NFT with value.

I think this is a very interesting proposal, especially if it possible to melt/burn the asset to retrieve the collateral. Say if a game goes offline and NFTs would become worthless; this means that the user can always get something back out of it.

One important change would be to use GAS for collateral instead of NEO. Indivisibility means that NEO does not have the required granularity for this use case, and we should not be locking the governance token into random NFTs, we should be encouraging NEO holders to use their NEO to vote.

Good point, may be we can use GAS instead and maybe set a minimum GAS fee requirement?

Hello guys!
We at blockchaincuties have implemented something similar to the proposed standard.
However, we got issues with methods like tokensOf, because it can be too expensive to read the whole storage. From my point of view, contract interface looks good, but need more technical details how to implement batchTransfer and other things to make it cost efficient.

Thanks, BlockchainCuties. Yes, we understand the expensive fee situation in Neo2. However, in Neo3, the fee is adjusted. For the detailed implementation, I (or anyone) can make one when the Neo3 testnet is launching.

As i understand type is part of the token id?

The tokenId is specific for each NFT and no matter which type of NFT it is. The type is an id to distinguish the different types of tokens are. They are different meaning and usage

This is likely a good direction to move. Ethereum has shown some success in this regard with ERC-1155, with Enjin also moving in the direction of backing each item with another token (ENJ in their case) in order to "imbue" the NFT with value.
I think this is a very interesting proposal, especially if it possible to melt/burn the asset to retrieve the collateral. Say if a game goes offline and NFTs would become worthless; this means that the user can always get something back out of it.
One important change would be to use GAS for collateral instead of NEO. Indivisibility means that NEO does not have the required granularity for this use case, and we should not be locking the governance token into random NFTs, we should be encouraging NEO holders to use their NEO to vote.

Good point, may be we can use GAS instead and maybe set a minimum GAS fee requirement?

@edgedlt Recently after discussion with other people who are interested in this proposal, how about use NEP5 token as collateral? In this way, contract can define some specific method that enable user can only stake specific NEP5 token. Then, the NEO/GAS can be also used by using CNEO/CGAS

NEP-5 sounds good to me. It will also work nicely with NEO/GAS when we migrate the standard to Neo3.

@neo-project/everyone Please check https://github.com/erikzhang/neo-asset-combiner