NFTs are a new medium, and we are barely scratching the surface of their power to provide humanity with a decentralized, immutable ledger. NFTs allow the inscription of creations such as art and other assets in the legacy of humanity. Some have compared early NFTs to cave paintings, as they bear witness to the footsteps of human creativity. While we are still laying the groundwork for future generations, preserving this patrimony, protecting collectors from fraud, and allowing for co-creativity is of utmost importance.

To this end, I created a framework for reviewing NFTs and NFT collections. In this review, NFTs are called ORBs (Ownership Recorded on Blockchain) because we consider the relationship between the token and the asset, not just the token itself. While NFT stands for "Non-Fungible Tokens," the term is not always accurate, as some collections are fungible or fractionalized.

I must emphasize the crucial role of a robust rating system that evaluates ORBs tokens based on three essential factors: immutability, ownability, and longevity. Immutability ensures the unchangeable nature of an ORBs metadata, preserving its integrity and value. Ownability provides clarity on the rights tied to the underlying asset, offering a transparent perspective on the extent of ownership and control. Longevity guarantees that the ORBs information remains secure and accessible over time, without the risk of counterparty data loss.

Immutability is one of the key features that make ORBs unique. It guarantees that the metadata of an ORB cannot be changed, which in turn preserves the integrity of the asset and ensures its value. By making the metadata immutable, ORBs become more secure and reliable, making them perfect for use in a variety of applications, from digital art and collectibles to gaming and virtual real estate. The immutable nature of ORBs also makes them ideal for long-term storage and archiving, as the asset can be trusted to remain unchanged over time. Furthermore, immutability ensures that ORBs can be used as a form of digital proof of ownership, providing a secure and tamper-proof way to transfer and prove ownership of digital assets.

Does the owner of the ORB have full control of the token? On the smart contract design, someone could potentially implement features that restrict people from sending the token, limit transfers to certain platforms, or even call back the token and replace it with another one. In this category, we review mostly if the asset can be removed or swapped from the original token.

Here, we are reviewing the risk that the asset can be removed without the holder's consent.

From the token contract, is there a direct hash that can be used in a decentralized storage system such as IPFS? If the token is associated with an HTTP resource, it can disappear or be changed at any time.

Sometimes, for operational reasons, a server needs to dynamically update the metadata. In this case, an ORB issuer should offer at least a mechanism to retrieve the original data from a decentralized storage system.

Is part or all of the relevant asset available on decentralized storage? One point will be awarded if the asset is stored in a decentralized manner.

When it comes to ORB ownership, it is important to consider the ownability rating. This rating is a measure of the user's ability to own the ORB and the associated assets. In order to ensure that an ORB owner is properly protected, it is crucial to have clear licensing information about the asset. This information can include details about how the asset can and cannot be used, as well as any restrictions on transfer or sale. By providing information, ORB owners can have greater confidence in their ownership and ensure that their assets are properly protected.

Here, we are reviewing the risk of the holder being prevented from disposing of the ORB as they would like. This includes limiting transfers to certain platforms or even calling back the token. For example, if the token contract could be stopped by an admin.

Did the ORB creator state the license attached to it? The license is the central point to refer to if there is a dispute between what the issuer is actually offering and what the acquirer thinks they own.

Asset governance is the expression of the issuer of the rules associated with the asset. It is fundamental to preserve scarcity and provide clarity for the acquirer. For example, will the issuer issue the same or very similar assets on another token contract? Is there clarity as well on what the holder is able to do with the asset? For example, integrate it in metaverses or sublicense it, etc. Clarity will increase the score, but the score will be negatively impacted if actions of other previous holders may impact current holders.

Is the ORB asset ownership transportable to different networks and chains while preserving its scarcity and other properties? For example, if a chain will be deprecated, is the holder allowed to burn the token and bring it to a new chain?

Is there a right to create derivative products? This is important to allow ORB interoperability in different metaverses or games. To allow interoperability, it is crucial to allow creative work from other contributors to adapt an asset to multiple technical and creative landscapes.

The longevity scores how much an ORB’s asset will last over time. In the worst case scenario with a zero score, the assets information is at risk to disappear when the issuer stops maintaining the asset storage. So the ORBs might lose all their properties and relation to assets. We encourage creators to point to decentralised storage systems such as IPFS but also provide redundancy in case data disappears from IPFS for example to allow anyone to recover the data.

1 point for asset 1 point for metadata when stored on IPFS

In-chain is a very robust way to store data for longevity. Potentially the data will stay as long as the blockchain remains available, nevertheless, in many cases, it’s not possible due to cost and constraints. When the asset lies in-chain the 3 points are awarded but can go lower if the chain has a risk to disappear or if there are certain uncertainties that the protocol might evolve into removing the data.

When data are stored or backed-up using Arweave, it gets 2 points.

We call permastory, information about the ORB, that might be useful for the holders on many aspects. For example the license agreement, the governance information, the background story, and information about the creator, artist etc. Generally, this information is found over the Internet but could be lost if nobody cares to maintain them online. 2 points are awarded if the creator cared to create immutable data on a decentralized storage system. 1 point if all important information is stored, and 1 point if they are directly linked to the token by their metadata.

Same rating as for ownerability we evaluate the transportability from a ledger (blockchain) to another and governing rules for wrapping, and fractionalizing a token. The more time passes the higher are the chances of changes in the protocols. Having a clear strategy on how the ORB can adapt to changes.

An ORB with derivative rights potentially increases its longevity. For example, if a sound is tokenized, and someone else create a tokenized animation film using that sound. The success of the second creation will incentivize the preservation of the first one.

NFTs are a new medium, and we are barely scratching the surface of their power to provide humanity with a decentralized, immutable ledger. NFTs allow the inscription of creations such as art and other assets in the legacy of humanity. Some have compared early NFTs to cave paintings, as they bear witness to the footsteps of human creativity. While we are still laying the groundwork for future generations, preserving this patrimony, protecting collectors from fraud, and allowing for co-creativity is of utmost importance.

To this end, I created a framework for reviewing NFTs and NFT collections. In this review, NFTs are called ORBs (Ownership Recorded on Blockchain) because we consider the relationship between the token and the asset, not just the token itself. While NFT stands for "Non-Fungible Tokens," the term is not always accurate, as some collections are fungible or fractionalized.

I must emphasize the crucial role of a robust rating system that evaluates ORBs tokens based on three essential factors: immutability, ownability, and longevity. Immutability ensures the unchangeable nature of an ORBs metadata, preserving its integrity and value. Ownability provides clarity on the rights tied to the underlying asset, offering a transparent perspective on the extent of ownership and control. Longevity guarantees that the ORBs information remains secure and accessible over time, without the risk of counterparty data loss.

Immutability is one of the key features that make ORBs unique. It guarantees that the metadata of an ORB cannot be changed, which in turn preserves the integrity of the asset and ensures its value. By making the metadata immutable, ORBs become more secure and reliable, making them perfect for use in a variety of applications, from digital art and collectibles to gaming and virtual real estate. The immutable nature of ORBs also makes them ideal for long-term storage and archiving, as the asset can be trusted to remain unchanged over time. Furthermore, immutability ensures that ORBs can be used as a form of digital proof of ownership, providing a secure and tamper-proof way to transfer and prove ownership of digital assets.

Does the owner of the ORB have full control of the token? On the smart contract design, someone could potentially implement features that restrict people from sending the token, limit transfers to certain platforms, or even call back the token and replace it with another one. In this category, we review mostly if the asset can be removed or swapped from the original token.

Here, we are reviewing the risk that the asset can be removed without the holder's consent.

From the token contract, is there a direct hash that can be used in a decentralized storage system such as IPFS? If the token is associated with an HTTP resource, it can disappear or be changed at any time.

Sometimes, for operational reasons, a server needs to dynamically update the metadata. In this case, an ORB issuer should offer at least a mechanism to retrieve the original data from a decentralized storage system.

Is part or all of the relevant asset available on decentralized storage? One point will be awarded if the asset is stored in a decentralized manner.

When it comes to ORB ownership, it is important to consider the ownability rating. This rating is a measure of the user's ability to own the ORB and the associated assets. In order to ensure that an ORB owner is properly protected, it is crucial to have clear licensing information about the asset. This information can include details about how the asset can and cannot be used, as well as any restrictions on transfer or sale. By providing information, ORB owners can have greater confidence in their ownership and ensure that their assets are properly protected.

Here, we are reviewing the risk of the holder being prevented from disposing of the ORB as they would like. This includes limiting transfers to certain platforms or even calling back the token. For example, if the token contract could be stopped by an admin.

Did the ORB creator state the license attached to it? The license is the central point to refer to if there is a dispute between what the issuer is actually offering and what the acquirer thinks they own.

Asset governance is the expression of the issuer of the rules associated with the asset. It is fundamental to preserve scarcity and provide clarity for the acquirer. For example, will the issuer issue the same or very similar assets on another token contract? Is there clarity as well on what the holder is able to do with the asset? For example, integrate it in metaverses or sublicense it, etc. Clarity will increase the score, but the score will be negatively impacted if actions of other previous holders may impact current holders.

Is the ORB asset ownership transportable to different networks and chains while preserving its scarcity and other properties? For example, if a chain will be deprecated, is the holder allowed to burn the token and bring it to a new chain?

Is there a right to create derivative products? This is important to allow ORB interoperability in different metaverses or games. To allow interoperability, it is crucial to allow creative work from other contributors to adapt an asset to multiple technical and creative landscapes.

The longevity scores how much an ORB’s asset will last over time. In the worst case scenario with a zero score, the assets information is at risk to disappear when the issuer stops maintaining the asset storage. So the ORBs might lose all their properties and relation to assets. We encourage creators to point to decentralised storage systems such as IPFS but also provide redundancy in case data disappears from IPFS for example to allow anyone to recover the data.

1 point for asset 1 point for metadata when stored on IPFS

In-chain is a very robust way to store data for longevity. Potentially the data will stay as long as the blockchain remains available, nevertheless, in many cases, it’s not possible due to cost and constraints. When the asset lies in-chain the 3 points are awarded but can go lower if the chain has a risk to disappear or if there are certain uncertainties that the protocol might evolve into removing the data.

When data are stored or backed-up using Arweave, it gets 2 points.

We call permastory, information about the ORB, that might be useful for the holders on many aspects. For example the license agreement, the governance information, the background story, and information about the creator, artist etc. Generally, this information is found over the Internet but could be lost if nobody cares to maintain them online. 2 points are awarded if the creator cared to create immutable data on a decentralized storage system. 1 point if all important information is stored, and 1 point if they are directly linked to the token by their metadata.

Same rating as for ownerability we evaluate the transportability from a ledger (blockchain) to another and governing rules for wrapping, and fractionalizing a token. The more time passes the higher are the chances of changes in the protocols. Having a clear strategy on how the ORB can adapt to changes.

An ORB with derivative rights potentially increases its longevity. For example, if a sound is tokenized, and someone else create a tokenized animation film using that sound. The success of the second creation will incentivize the preservation of the first one.