draft: LIP-27 - Token Bound Profiles Proposal

[ValentineCodes]

LIP-27 introduces a standard for creating Token Bound Profiles (TBP) using LSP8 Identifiable Digital Assets and Universal Profiles (LSP0) on the Lukso blockchain. This proposal allows each LSP8 token to be associated with a Universal Profile, enabling token-based ownership and interactions.

[JordyDutch]

👏🏼🚀🤝🏼

[tantodefi]

For consideration with 'Ownership Cycles'

We could potentially prevent the LSP8 being sent to the associated UP of the Token Bound Profile - by adding a check/override in the transfer function - although I'm not sure if this is desirable as we should try to keep the interfaces of the Profiles as close to the same as possible.

[ValentineCodes]

For consideration with 'Ownership Cycles'

We could potentially prevent the LSP8 being sent to the associated UP of the Token Bound Profile - by adding a check/override in the transfer function - although I'm not sure if this is desirable as we should try to keep the interfaces of the Profiles as close to the same as possible.

This seems like a step in the right direction, but it may not work well with existing NFTs.

A way around this would be to modify the Universal Receiver to revert if it receives the token

[YamenMerhi]

Initial thoughts:

• Achieve almost the same functionalities of ERC6551
• Bounding Account to tokenId is possible using this method, also with having accounts as direct bytes32 tokenId, but that is more for advanced usecases or a start of an NFT with account. The LSP-27 can be helpful for normal tokenId representing as numbers, hex, etc .. to be later associated with an account.
• Any Implementation ? The implementation needs to be reviewed carefully especially on the part of overriding ownership to be accessible by the token owner.
• Better to allow full profile creation with bytecode, and probably initialization calldata ?
• Wording should be independent from LUKSO Blockchain, better to use "LSPs" to refer to the ecosystem of LSPs.
• More clarity about the registry: where is it deployed, how, etc ..

[frozeman]

What is the purpose of the chain ID in the profile creation function?

[ValentineCodes]

What is the purpose of the chain ID in the profile creation function?

Ensures that the profile is uniquely tied to a specific network. However, as the LSPs are only for Lukso Blockchain, do you think this is unnecessary?

[frozeman]

Ensures that the profile is uniquely tied to a specific network. However, as the LSPs are only for Lukso Blockchain, do you think this is unnecessary?

LSPs work on any chain, but in order that this LSP8 can set the owner of a profile, both the smart contract of the profile, as well as this LSP8 need to be on the same chain.
Hence why i am not sure what the chain ID is doing here.

Do i understand this right, that this is a simple LSP8 that deploys profiles, which then use the owner of the LSP8 token ID as owner of itself?

If thats the case, here are a few points:

• If the owner is changed by the transfer of the LSP8, then no keymanager can control this profile, meaning it looses all the special powers of LSP6 (permissions etc)
• The tokenId should be an address, which is the address of the profile

[ValentineCodes]

Initial thoughts:

• Achieve almost the same functionalities of ERC6551
• Bounding Account to tokenId is possible using this method, also with having accounts as direct bytes32 tokenId, but that is more for advanced usecases or a start of an NFT with account. The LSP-27 can be helpful for normal tokenId representing as numbers, hex, etc .. to be later associated with an account.
• Any Implementation ? The implementation needs to be reviewed carefully especially on the part of overriding ownership to be accessible by the token owner.
• Better to allow full profile creation with bytecode, and probably initialization calldata ?
• Wording should be independent from LUKSO Blockchain, better to use "LSPs" to refer to the ecosystem of LSPs.
• More clarity about the registry: where is it deployed, how, etc ..

Thank you for reviewing this. I’ll update the documentation based on your suggestions.

[ValentineCodes]

Ensures that the profile is uniquely tied to a specific network. However, as the LSPs are only for Lukso Blockchain, do you think this is unnecessary?

LSPs work on any chain, but in order that this LSP8 can set the owner of a profile, both the smart contract of the profile, as well as this LSP8 need to be on the same chain. Hence why i am not sure what the chain ID is doing here.

Do i understand this right, that this is a simple LSP8 that deploys profiles, which then use the owner of the LSP8 token ID as owner of itself?

If thats the case, here are a few points:

• If the owner is changed by the transfer of the LSP8, then no keymanager can control this profile, meaning it looses all the special powers of LSP6 (permissions etc)
• The tokenId should be an address, which is the address of the profile

You make a good point. Using the tokenId as the address of the profile would be a great idea for newly created NFTs. However, how would this approach work for existing NFTs?