NFT integrity

[topaz kernel]

So I was thinking about making an IIP that states no single NFT can be banned from game, to ensure the integrity of the whole ecosystem. I know devs have stated they want ban NFT’s, but statements can change, and for a decision like this I would like it that the council get to vote on it, which an IIP would ensure.

So the IIP would in short just state something like:
No NFT within the Illuvium ecosystem can be banned based on wallet, owner or history of transactions.

What do people think? Would it make sense? I don’t see it as consuming anybody’s time but the councils, in a brief discussion

[frail rune]

One problem is that players with accounts that do not follow the rules or attempt to break the system will be banned. Which means that WALLETS will be banned. Because game accounts are connected to wallets. But all that needs to be done is for the banned account to transfer the assets to a different wallet.

Otherwise I think it’s fine. Since that’s the whole idea.

[faint tinsel]

There could be valid reasons to ban certain NFTs. In the event that someone finds a loophole to mint fraudulent NFTs, it could be possible to track down and ban those NFTs. That's obviously a terrible situation in the first place, and there could be collateral damage (such as genuine players who bought fraudulent NFTs).

I'm on board with not banning NFTs, except in the event of an exploit, in which case I'm extremely in favor of the team having the tools in place to take action and protect the economy.

It's also possible there are better solutions to deal with a hypothetical situation like this.

As an example, a parallel to this situation would be the situation with the sILV exploit about a year ago. If the team's hands were tied (i.e. didn't have the tools in place to deal with the situation), they couldn't have minted sILV, drained what was left of the LP, and protected genuine users. Having redundancy plans and options is important when you're dealing with anything people are assigning monetary value to.

[topaz kernel]

This is why I thought it was worth to put it in an IIP. I agree that in the future vent of an exploit there needs to be a way to combat it, but I thought that was what the eDAO was for? Doing important stuff and asking the council afterwards. I just think it’s important that decisions regarding this are transparent and ultimately made on the council, and not by the teams discretion