Lazy Mint Controller - mintNftAsset: support for explicitly setting transfer 'to' address

[bobwith2bees]

Updated 2022 02 23:

See well down the thread, but in short (I think)
Background:
The existing NFT smart contracts supports explicitly setting the address who will receive a minted NFT:

function mintAndTransfer(LibERC721LazyMint.Mint721Data memory data, address to)

Problem:
The SDK API does not allow setting this parameter directly for the nft-lazy-mint-controller. https://ethereum-api.rarible.org/v0.1/doc#tag/nft-lazy-mint-controller

Ask:
Provide an query parameter to the API call where I can lazy mint and explicitly provide the address for the Lazy Minted NFT to be delivered.

Why
Well then you can read the entire thread. ;-). In summary - my app does the minting heavy lifting for my customer who will receive the lazyMinted NFT. If I want to lock down my minting contract so no one else can use it - I have to perform the mint.

Today - If I mint, I have to receive the Lazy minted NFT to my creator account. There is no way to transfer to my customer without forcing a sell. I want the ability to lazy mint and deliver to my customers account directly. My customer should be the first person to list an NFT for sale.

---- Original question below ----
Could I get a clarification how the owner check works when I have specified my ERC-721 should only allow minting from the owner?

In my use case I want to Lazy-mint and NFT on behalf of my customer, using my lazy-mint contract that has been restricted to myself as the owner.

• In order to mint the NFT and have my customer be able to sell that NFT, I place the customer's address in the first position of the creator array of the Lazy mint form (and have them sign it.)
• In order to have the Lazy mint contract permission, I add the contract owner's address in the second position of the creator array (and sign it.)

    creators = [
     {"account": customerAddr, "value": 10000}
     {"account": contractOwnerAddr, "value": 00000}
   ]

Is my understanding correct? (I haven't tried it yet, but it's a pretty big deal and I need to know.)

[sirgawain0x]

Hi @bobwith2bees I haven't personally tried this specific iteration yet, either. But logically, this looks to be correct. @evgenynacu can we get confirmation on this implementation?

[bobwith2bees]

@gawainb
I believe Eugene asked this question be routed to the smart contracts team per a previous dev call, but I didn't know how to ask that team a question besides filing it here. Thanks.

[sirgawain0x]

Not a problem. This medium is always best to assure these type of inquires don't get lost within all the updates in queue by development. Much appreciated.

[bobwith2bees]

Any update on this? This is a clarification / documentation request for this work. rarible/protocol-contracts#105

[bobwith2bees]

Is there any more information needed for this yes or no question? (Well I suppose if the answer is no, workarounds or a feature request to track would be useful... ;-))

[disenotov]

Hello!
Sorry for the long wait, expected contracts questions to be in protocol-contracts/ :)
Your creators array should be
creators = [
{"account": contractOwnerAddr, "value": 10000}
]

and tx should be signed by contractOwnerAddr.
Creators array doesn't affect ability to sell, your customer will be able to sell it.
Creators array is about who can mint that item.

[bobwith2bees]

@disenotov - Sorry I filed the ticket in the wrong bucket. Thank for your reply.

I understand the use case you are describing when the contract owner creates the NFT and then the contract owner places them for the initial sale.

My question - I am the contract owner and I am minting an NFT for my customer to put on sale (as the first seller.). I want to lazy mint on behalf of my customer. I do not want to sell any NFTs. That's what my customer will do. Does that make sense?

Does the contract ownership check - check all creators in the creator array, and allow minting if any of the creators in the list match the contract owner? I have to place my customer as creator[0] for them to sell. So I would need creator[1] to be the contract owner. (Assuming both sign etc...)

[bobwith2bees]

In other words:
My customer will do the minting and be the first creator in the array. They should be able to list the NFT for sale with no gas cost.
I own the contract. Can I give my customer permission to mint by adding myself as the second creator in the array?
Both creators would provide signatures.

Thanks,
-Bob

[disenotov]

ok, so for that case we need minter-role functionality (rarible/protocol-contracts#105), that is already merged , but not yet deployed. i think we are going to deploy it this or next week.

[bobwith2bees]

@disenotov will that incur a gas fee to add minters? I will have potentially thousands of minters - and I really only want to approve specific minting requests that use my app (hence using my signature as the approval.).

If I tried to use the grant/revoke minter - It would be basically calling it every time my customer mints. Grant - Lazy mint - revoke. If the list is off-chain then I suppose it can work as long as there are no issues with concurrency/parallel request for multiple customers. I don't see the TPS being much more than 1/sec peak.

Am I talking crazy? Do I need a new feature request instead?

[disenotov]

lets summarise what we discussed:

• to lazy mint in private collections creators[0] address should have permission to mint

so there are 2 ways you can do it now:

• adding contract owner address first, customer second
• using soon to be deployed minter-role functionality, by giving your customer permission to mint.

as i understand both these cases don't satisfy your needs, because 1) you want your customer address to be first in creators array and 2) giving permission to mint to thousands of user one by one would be extremely expensive.
so yes, i think we need to implement something else for your case

[bobwith2bees]

@disenotov Yes your summary is correct.

Even just checking creator[0] and creator[1] for approved minters would solve my problem. The issue is you have used creator[0] as an indicator for two different roles (minter and recipient of lazy minted NFT.)

Please let me know how I can get this enhancement on the list. I have been asking this question on the Protocol calls with @evgenynacu and @eduardstal for some time (months) and I thought I was going to be ok.

In the meantime, I assume as the owner of the contract I can remove NFTs that are not minted through my app. I would need to poll (or is there a feed?) every NFT minted, check to see if my account signed it (as a validity check,) and remove it before someone tries to buy it. I am just trying to figure out how to get into production with my app... help appreciated.

-Bob

[disenotov]

hello again!
i asked my colleagues and indeed you can't use SDK for your use case, so directly calling the contract is probably the best way for now.

[bobwith2bees]

@disenotov Thank you for all your help.

I re-titled the github question and will now ask the protocol team. :-)

[sirgawain0x]

@bobwith2bees how did this answer work for you and do you need any additional support on this?

[bobwith2bees]

@gawainb - This is now a request for enhancement for the protocol team. Not sure where to file it, but I updated the title to reflect the current request.

[bobwith2bees]

Can we make it an optional query parameter that overrides the default existing behavior of transferring to the first creator in the creator array?

https://ethereum-api-staging.rarible.org/v0.1/nft/mints?transferTo=0x7Fd611Af09BeFB5f47aBB19FCC25a22997aEb0b1
{form body as before}

[eduardstal]

Hey there, as we discussed already, we will include this feature request into our backlock in less than two weeks from now. I will assign the "closed" tag for now.

[bobwith2bees]

@eduardstal It has been two months and this feature is not available. Should we re-open this for tracking?