Counted NFT Transfers

Guangsheng Yu; Minfeng Qi; Qin Wang; Shiping Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Counted NFT Transfers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read ERC-7634 gives every NFT a transfer counter and a configurable cap, turning ownership mobility into a finite, priced resource that deters wash trading and bounds leverage.

desk verdict ERC-7634 is a real, minimal standard for bounded NFT transfers, but the headline economic claims ride on an untested pricing model; judge it as a systems proposal, not an empirical economics paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.19199 v2 pith:4BIYD3S3 submitted 2026-02-22 cs.CR

Qin Wang , Minfeng Qi , Guangsheng Yu , Shiping Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CR

keywords ERC-7634NFTtransfersboundedtransferabilitytransfercountermobilitypremiumwashtradingrecursiveleverageEthereumtokenstandards

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper identifies a missing middle ground in NFT ownership: tokens are either freely transferable or permanently non-transferable. It introduces ERC-7634, a minimal, backward-compatible extension to ERC-721 that gives every token a transfer counter and a configurable cap L, so ownership can change hands only a finite number of times. The authors argue this simple mechanism creates a priced mobility premium, makes wash trading self-defeating when buyers price remaining transfer capacity, and structurally truncates recursive collateralization. They show the extension costs fewer than 60 lines of Solidity, adds under 11% gas per transfer, and leaves more than 85% of tokens unaffected at L=10 under calibrated heavy-tailed transfer distributions. The economic conclusions depend on buyers actually pricing remaining mobility in the assumed functional form.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the per-token state tuple (k, L), where k is the number of native transfers completed and L is the configured cap; the transfer hook enforces k < L for native transfers and increments k afterward. The mobility premium function f(x)=x^0.5 maps remaining transfer fraction to value, making marginal transfer cost rise as budget depletes. This state machine is what converts transfer count into an economically scarce resource, and it is what the wash-trade and leverage results are built on.

What would settle it

Deploy an ERC-7634 collection with L=10 and record resale prices against remaining transfer count; if prices do not decline with consumed transfers, or if a wash trader can resell near base value after repeated self-trades, the cap-aware pricing premise is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ERC-7634 augments ERC-721 with a per-token transfer counter and cap, enforced inside the native transfer hook so that mint and burn do not consume budget. Three read/write functions (transferCountOf, setTransferLimit, transferLimitOf) and two events expose mobility state to marketplaces and protocols. The paper claims this suffices to induce a concave mobility premium f(x)=sqrt(x), to turn wash trading into an irreversible value-destroying activity under cap-aware pricing, and to bound re-hypothecation depth to floor(L/2), reducing maximum leverage from 1/(1-LTV) to a truncated geometric sum. It also documents a wrapper bypass that lets control transfer outside the counter, treating ERC-7634

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real buyers observe on-chain transfer counts and value tokens via the assumed concave mobility function; if market participants do not price remaining transfers this way, the wash-trading and mobility-premium conclusions do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At L=10, fewer than 15% of tokens in any simulated collection category hit the cap, so typical owners experience no restriction.
Under cap-aware pricing, wash trading at L=10 turns unprofitable after about five self-trades; at L=5, after three.
Recursive leverage falls from an unbounded 3.33x to 2.94x at LTV=0.7 and L=10, an 11.7% reduction without changing lending protocols.
Gas overhead stays below 11% per transfer, with mint costs unchanged and a one-time 23,496-gas cost for setting the limit.
Exhausted tokens can settle as soulbound, auto-burn, lock-and-release, or provenance-freeze states, giving issuers lifecycle control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If transfer-bounded tokens gain adoption, marketplaces could surface remaining transfer budget as a standard listing field; the mobility premium would then show up directly in resale price data, providing a natural empirical test of the valuation model.
The cap-aware pricing assumption is untested; a small live collection with L=10 and tracked on-chain prices could falsify or confirm the concave discounting before broad deployment.
Because wrapper bypass is possible, ERC-7634 should be viewed as a coordination/signaling layer; applications needing hard transfer limits must pair it with allowlists or lockable wrappers.
The same counted-transfer idea generalizes beyond NFTs to limited-use licenses, subscription passes, or any asset with a desired exhaustion lifecycle.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The genuinely new piece in arXiv:2602.19199 is ERC-7634 itself: a minimal ERC-721 extension adding a per-token transfer counter and cap, with three functions, two events, and enforcement via native-transfer hooks. That is absent from the prior standards they survey (ERC-4907, 5192, 5484, 5679, 6982), and it went through the real EIP process. The state machine is coherent, Safety/Liveness is correct, and the gas overhead estimate (<11%) is plausible. I re-checked the arithmetic in Eqs. (4)-(9) and Tables IV-VII; it is internally consistent. The wrapper-bypass discussion is honest: they call it a budgeting primitive, not enforcement, and the mitigations are sensible.

The soft spot is exactly what the authors concede in Section VIII-D: the economics are model-conditional. The mobility premium is Definition 1 with a hand-picked f(x)=x^0.5; wash-trade deterrence disappears if buyers don't price remaining transfer budget in that way (their own Eq. 7 shows profit stays positive when alpha > g/V_base). The leverage bound is a direct consequence of the counting semantics plus a custody-by-transfer assumption, so it is more robust, but only as strong as that assumption. The "fewer than 15% of tokens" figure comes from synthetic power-law distributions, not real on-chain transfers, and no code or data artifacts accompany the paper. Minor inconsistency: Table IV's threshold column shows 0.50 at k=0 even though rho=0. That is calibration-level and doesn't affect the main design.

So: the mechanism is solid and worth engaging; the "results reveal" framing oversells what is an analysis of a possible pricing regime. A serious referee should ask for real on-chain transfer data or clearly labeled scenario analysis, and should probably require Proposition 1 to be stated explicitly as conditional on f. But the standard deserves peer review — this is a real design gap, and the paper gives implementers enough to build on. I'd send it to referees with instructions to focus on the mechanism and treat the economics as illustrative. I would cite it for the standard and the state machine. Reading group? Maybe, for anyone interested in NFT standards. Serious thinker: yes — the authors know where their assumptions are thin and say so.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ERC-7634, an ERC-721 extension that adds a per-token transfer counter and a configurable transfer cap L, exposed through three interface functions, two events, and enforcement hooks in the _update path. It formalizes the resulting token state machine with safety and liveness properties, gives a minimal OpenZeppelin-based implementation, and analyzes economic consequences: a mobility premium valuation model (Definition 1), wash-trading deterrence (Proposition 1), recursive-leverage truncation (Eq. 9), wrapper-bypass security costs, and gas overhead. The evaluation uses 50,000 synthetic tokens with power-law transfer distributions calibrated to published NFT statistics. The paper also discusses cap-selection guidelines and post-cap token destinations.

Significance. If the mechanism is adopted, ERC-7634 would fill a genuine design gap between freely transferable ERC-721 and non-transferable ERC-5192, and its minimal interface, backward compatibility, and sub-11% gas overhead make deployment plausible. The state-machine specification is clean, the safety/liveness properties are correct as stated, and the wrapper-bypass analysis, with its explicit break-even calculation, is a useful systems contribution. However, the headline economic claims — the mobility premium and wash-trade deterrence — are not derived facts but consequences of an assumed cap-aware pricing function f(x)=sqrt(x), as the paper itself concedes in VIII-D. The paper is therefore best read as a protocol proposal with conditional analytical results; the economic effects are scenarios, not empirical properties of ERC-7634.

major comments (3)

[§IV-A (Definition 1) and §IV-C (Proposition 1)] The mobility premium is assumed, not derived. The paper states in the abstract that results 'reveal' a mobility premium, but Eq. (1) defines V(k,L)=V_base f((L-k)/L) for hand-chosen f, and all Table IV and Table VI numbers follow from the particular concave choice f(x)=sqrt(x), with 'cap-aware market' stipulated in Proposition 1. Eq. (7) shows that if real buyers do not discount remaining transfer count (i.e., f=1), wash trading remains profitable whenever alpha > g/V_base. Thus the claim that 'repeated manipulation becomes unprofitable after a few cycles' is a property of the assumed valuation model, not of ERC-7634 itself. This must be reframed as a conditional analytical result, or supported by empirical pricing data from transfer-bounded tokens.
[§VIII-D and Abstract] The limitations paragraph correctly admits that 'empirical pricing data from transfer-bounded tokens is required' and that transfer distributions are synthetic, but the abstract presents the economic conclusions without consistently carrying this caveat. In particular, 'repeated manipulation becomes unprofitable after a few cycles' is stated as a result, with only the parenthetical 'in a cap-aware pricing model,' and the 'fewer than 15% of tokens' impact figure is drawn from synthetic power-law distributions in Table III. I recommend either adding empirical validation using real on-chain transfer data, or systematically hedging every headline economic claim with 'under the assumed cap-aware pricing model and synthetic transfer distributions.'
[§IV-D and §V-A (Eq. 8, wrapper bypass)] The recursive-leverage bound d_max = floor(L/2) in Eq. (8) relies on 'custody-by-transfer': each rehypothecation must consume two native transfers. But the paper's own wrapper-bypass analysis in §V-A shows that a contract can hold the NFT while ownership of a wrapper is transferred without incrementing the counter. A lending protocol could therefore bypass the cap by holding tokens in a wrapper and transferring wrapper control, unless the lending protocol is designed to use native transfers. The leverage-truncation claim in Table VII should be conditioned on this custody model and explicitly reconciled with the wrapper-bypass limitation.

minor comments (5)

[§III-A] Duplicate word: 'native-transfer hooks hooks, ensuring' should read 'native-transfer hooks, ensuring'.
[§VI-A] The text says 'we evaluate three representative values L∈{5,10,15,20,50}' but lists five values. The sentence should say 'five' or reduce the set.
[§II-C and §VI-A] The power-law parameters are only partially reported (e.g., α=1.8 for gaming items, α=3.0 for memberships). Full parameters and generation details are needed for reproducibility of Tables II and III.
[§VI-H] The wrapper bypass break-even at N≈221 is presented without a closed-form derivation. Eq. (10) defines C_bypass, but the equation yielding N=221 from gas prices and V_base is not shown.
[§IV-A] The phrase 'Our results reveal (i) a mobility premium' would be more accurate as 'We hypothesize a mobility premium through the following functional forms,' since the premium is not estimated from data.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mobility premium and wash-trade deterrence are restatements of the assumed valuation function f; gas and leverage mechanisms are self-contained.

self definitional [Section IV-A, Definition 1 / Eq. (1); Section VI-C, Table IV and 'Takeaway 2']
"Definition 1 (Mobility Premium). ... The transfer-adjusted value is V(k,L)= [Vbase, L=0(unbounded); Vbase·f((L−k)/L), L>0], where f:[0,1]→[ρ,1] is a mobility premium function satisfying f(1)=1... Takeaway 2: The mobility premium. Each remaining transfer retains measurable value."

The 'mobility premium' is not derived or measured; it is literally the assumed function f in Eq. (1). Table IV computes Vbase·f((L−k)/L) for four hand-picked f forms, so the table and 'Takeaway 2' restate the definition. Section VIII-D concedes 'empirical pricing data from transfer-bounded tokens is required', i.e., no independent evidence determines f. Thus the headline 'mobility premium induced by remaining transfer capacity' is the input assumption renamed as an output.
other [Section IV-C, Proposition 1, Eqs. (4)-(7)]
"Proposition 1 (Wash Trading Deterrence in a Cap-Aware Pricing Model). Under the concave valuation model with γ=0.5, consider a cap-aware market in which buyers observe remaining transfer counts on-chain and price tokens accordingly. ... Wash trading becomes unprofitable (Πcap≤0) when n≥n∗ ... For comparison, without transfer caps, the attacker's profit reduces to Πnocap=Vbase·α−ng, which remains positive as long as artificial price inflation exceeds transaction costs."

The break-even condition is a direct algebraic rewrite of the assumed valuation model, not a consequence of ERC-7634 per se. 'Cap-aware market' is defined as buyers discounting by the same f used in Definition 1, so the conclusion that consuming transfers destroys resale value is the premise. The paper's own Eq. (7) shows that if buyers do not discount in this form, wash trading remains profitable whenever α exceeds per-trade cost. Hence the deterrence claim reduces by construction to the untested pricing assumption.

full rationale

The mechanism half of the paper is self-contained: the ERC-7634 interface, the state machine, the hook-based Solidity implementation, gas measurements, and the leverage truncation bound under the explicitly stated custody-by-transfer model follow from the design and are not circular. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the authors' own EIP [10] is cited as the standard being introduced, not as independent mathematical evidence, and the other self-citations are contextual. However, the two headline economic results are definitional/contingent. Section IV-A defines the mobility premium by choosing f; Table IV and Takeaway 2 then present the chosen f's values as a discovered result. Proposition 1's wash-trade deterrence is an arithmetic consequence of that same f plus the cap-aware-market assumption, and the paper's Eq. (7) itself shows the effect vanishes under ordinary pricing. The paper is transparent about the need for empirical pricing data, but the abstract still headlines these model consequences as findings. A score of 6 reflects that the central economic claims reduce by construction to the assumed input, while the protocol/gas/leverage contributions retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The economic results rest on behavioral and modeling assumptions chosen ad hoc: the premium's functional form, the cap-aware buyer, the custody-by-transfer lending model, and the synthetic calibration. The mechanism's counting semantics are self-contained.

free parameters (8)

concavity exponent gamma = 0.5
Chosen by hand in section IV-B; defines the concave premium f(x)=x^gamma that generates the marginal-cost escalation and wash-trade break-even points in Tables V-VI.
wash-trade inflation alpha = 0.3
Chosen in section IV-C; directly sets the profitable region of wash trading — break-even at 5 trades (L=10) is computed from this value.
baseline token value V_base = 10 ETH
Assumed in section VI-A; scales every ETH profit figure (Tables IV, VI).
per-trade transaction cost g = 0.005 ETH
Assumed in section VI-A; offsets the linear term n*g in the wash-profit equation.
threshold-model parameters tau and rho = tau=0.2, rho=0 (but Table IV implies 5% residual)
Chosen in section IV-A; Table IV's threshold column uses a residual of 0.05*V_base, inconsistent with the stated rho=0.
loan-to-value LTV = 0.7
Assumed in section IV-D; sets the percentage leverage reductions in Table VII.
collection-specific power-law parameters = exponents ~1.8 (gaming) to ~3.0 (memberships)
'Calibrated to published empirical statistics' (section VI-A) but synthetic; drives the headline 'fewer than 15% of tokens' claim in Table III.
wrapper and mitigation gas costs = 450k deploy; 5.1k-15.6k per mitigation
Inputs to the wrapper-bypass break-even model (sections V-A/C); produce N≈221, which is parameter-dependent.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Cap-aware market pricing: buyers observe remaining transfer counts and value tokens by the concave f
Proposition 1 (section IV-C). Without it, wash-trade profit reduces to the no-cap case (Eq. 7) and deterrence disappears.
domain assumption Each recursive-leverage cycle consumes exactly two native transfers (custody-by-transfer model)
Section IV-D. Sets d_max=floor(L/2); alternative lending flows (e.g., one deposit per cycle) give different bounds.
ad hoc to paper The four premium families (linear/concave/convex/threshold) with f(1)=1 are the relevant valuation space
Definition 1 (section IV-A). No derivation from buyer utility or market data; the paper itself calls the models 'analytical abstractions' (section VIII-D).
standard math Geometric-series leverage formula
Eq. (9), sum of LTV^i; standard.
domain assumption Mint and burn are count-neutral; only native from!=0, to!=0 transfers increment the counter
Sections III-D/E. Correct for the stated design but a design choice, not a constraint.
domain assumption Wrapper bypass economics: deployment ~450k gas and wrapped tokens lose cap-aware credibility
Sections V-A/B. The N≈221 break-even and the mitigation trade-offs (Fig. 13) rest on these cost inputs.

invented entities (1)

Mobility premium function f(x)=x^gamma (with hand-picked gamma=0.5, rho=0)
purpose: Defines token value as a function of remaining transfer budget; generates the mobility-premium, marginal-cost, and wash-deterrence results
Pulled from a hat in Definition 1 (section IV-A): four candidate forms, no market data choosing among them, and the paper concedes empirical calibration is pending (section VIII-D). No falsifiable handle outside the paper; it is the load-bearing construct behind results (i) and (ii).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counted NFT Transfers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BIYD3S3

@misc{pith2026260219199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counted NFT Transfers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BIYD3S3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.19199}
}

read the original abstract

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on Ethereum currently follow a binary mobility paradigm: ERC-721 enables unrestricted transfers, whereas SBTs (ERC-5192) prohibit transfers entirely. We identify a design gap in which no standard mechanism supports bounded transferability, where ownership mobility is allowed but limited to a finite number of programmable transfers. We study counted NFT transfers and introduce ERC-7634 as a minimal realization compatible with ERC-721. The design augments each token with a transfer counter and configurable cap L, allowing ownership to evolve under a finite transfer budget. ERC-7634 defines a minimal extension interface with three lightweight functions (transferCountOf, setTransferLimit, and transferLimitOf), two events, and native-transfer hooks, requiring fewer than 60 additional lines of Solidity while preserving full backward compatibility with existing NFT infrastructure. We analyze behavioral and economic consequences of counted transfers. Our results reveal (i) a mobility premium induced by remaining transfer capacity, (ii) a protocol-level costing signal that can deter wash trading in cap-aware markets through irreversible budget consumption, (iii) bounded recursive collateralization enabled by limited ownership turnover, and (iv) associated security and gas-cost implications, including wrapper-bypass trade-offs. Evaluation on calibrated simulations shows that moderate limits (e.g., L = 10) affect fewer than 15% of tokens under representative transfer distributions, while repeated manipulation becomes unprofitable after a few cycles in a cap-aware pricing model; the additional gas overhead remains below 11% per transfer. We further position ERC-7634 within the NFT mobility design space, derive practical cap-selection guidelines, and discuss post-cap ownership outcomes including soulbound conversion, auto-burn, and provenance freeze.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19199 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** System overview of the ERC-7634 extension. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Wrapper bypass threat model. An attacker deploys a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Transfer count distributions across collection types. Cap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Token percentages exceeding each transfer cap by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Token value as a function of remaining transfers under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Marginal cost of successive transfers under the concave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Wash trading deterrence. The dashed line marks zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Token value degradation during wash trading. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Gas costs. ERC-7634 introduces modest overhead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Security cost. The wrapper bypass breaks even at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: ERC-7634 (diamonds) bridges the gap between non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: ERC-7634 token lifecycle: from minted (full budget) through active trading to a settled state, with optional extensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

ERC-721: Non-fungible token standard

William Entriken, Dieter Shirley, Jacob Evans, and Nastassia Sachs. ERC-721: Non-fungible token standard. Ethereum Improvement Pro- posals, January 2018

2018
[2]

Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges.CoRR, abs/2105.07447, 2021

Qin Wang, Rujia Li, Qi Wang, and Shiping Chen. Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges.CoRR, abs/2105.07447, 2021

arXiv 2021
[3]

Yearly NFT market report 2021

NonFungible.com. Yearly NFT market report 2021. Technical report, NonFungible.com, 2021

2021
[4]

Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin

E. Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin. Decentralized society: Finding Web3’s soul.SSRN Electronic Journal, May 2022

2022
[5]

ERC-5192: Minimal soulbound NFTs

Tim Daubensch ¨utz and Anders. ERC-5192: Minimal soulbound NFTs. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, July 2022

2022
[6]

ERC-5484: Consensual soulbound tokens

Buzz Cai. ERC-5484: Consensual soulbound tokens. Ethereum Im- provement Proposals, August 2022

2022
[7]

NFT wash trading: Quantifying suspicious behaviour in NFT markets

Victor von Wachter, Johannes Rude Jensen, Ferdinand Regner, and Omri Ross. NFT wash trading: Quantifying suspicious behaviour in NFT markets. InInternational Conferences on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) Workshops, volume 13412 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 299–311. Springer, 2023

2023
[8]

Understanding security issues in the NFT ecosystem

Dipanjan Das, Priyanka Bose, Nicola Ruaro, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. Understanding security issues in the NFT ecosystem. InProceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pages 667–681. ACM, 2022

2022

Show all 22 references

[9]

The (sizable) role of rehypothe- cation in the shadow banking system

Manmohan Singh and James Aitken. The (sizable) role of rehypothe- cation in the shadow banking system. IMF Working Paper WP/10/172, International Monetary Fund, July 2010

2010
[10]

ERC-7634: Limited transfer count NFT

Qin Wang, Saber Yu, and Shiping Chen. ERC-7634: Limited transfer count NFT. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, February 2024

2024
[11]

Understanding NFTs from EIP standards.CoRR, abs/2508.07190, 2025

Minfeng Qi et al. Understanding NFTs from EIP standards.CoRR, abs/2508.07190, 2025

2025 arXiv
[12]

ERC-1155: Multi token standard

Witek Radomski, Andrew Cooke, Philippe Castonguay, James Therien, Eric Binet, and Ronan Sandford. ERC-1155: Multi token standard. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, June 2018

2018
[13]

ERC-4907: Rental NFT, an extension of EIP-721

Anders, Lance, and Shrug. ERC-4907: Rental NFT, an extension of EIP-721. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, March 2022

2022
[14]

ERC- 2981: NFT royalty standard

Zach Burks, James Morgan, Blaine Malone, and James Seibel. ERC- 2981: NFT royalty standard. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, Septem- ber 2020

2020
[15]

ERC-6982: Efficient default lockable tokens

Francesco Sullo and Alexe Spataru. ERC-6982: Efficient default lockable tokens. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, May 2023

2023
[16]

ERC-5679: Token minting and burning

Zainan Victor Zhou. ERC-5679: Token minting and burning. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, September 2022

2022
[17]

Maximizing nft incentives: References make you rich.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (TSC), pages 1–19, 2025

Guangsheng Yu et al. Maximizing nft incentives: References make you rich.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (TSC), pages 1–19, 2025

2025
[18]

Unveiling the paradox of NFT prosperity

Jintao Huang, Pengcheng Xia, Jiefeng Li, Kai Ma, Gareth Tyson, Xiapu Luo, Lei Wu, Yajin Zhou, Wei Cai, and Haoyu Wang. Unveiling the paradox of NFT prosperity. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference (WWW), pages 167–177, 2024

2024
[19]

NFTDisk: Visual detection of wash trading in NFT markets

Xiaolin Wen, Yong Wang, Xuanwu Yue, Feida Zhu, and Min Zhu. NFTDisk: Visual detection of wash trading in NFT markets. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 2023

2023
[20]

Manipulation-resilient pricing for non-fungible tokens.IEEE Internet of Things Journal (IoTJ), 2025

Bin Wang, Yang Gao, and Wei Wang. Manipulation-resilient pricing for non-fungible tokens.IEEE Internet of Things Journal (IoTJ), 2025

2025
[21]

An analysis of financial stability risk propagation through leveraged staking activities

Takaya Sugino, Benjamin Kraner, James Angel, Shin’ichiro Matsuo, and Rohil Paruchuri. An analysis of financial stability risk propagation through leveraged staking activities. InInternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC), pages 50–68. Springer, 2025

2025
[22]

Leverage staking with liquid staking derivatives (LSDs): Opportunities and risks

Xihan Xiong, Zhipeng Wang, Xi Chen, William Knottenbelt, and Michael Huth. Leverage staking with liquid staking derivatives (LSDs): Opportunities and risks. InIEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pages 1–9, 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

ERC-721: Non-fungible token standard

William Entriken, Dieter Shirley, Jacob Evans, and Nastassia Sachs. ERC-721: Non-fungible token standard. Ethereum Improvement Pro- posals, January 2018

2018

[2] [2]

Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges.CoRR, abs/2105.07447, 2021

Qin Wang, Rujia Li, Qi Wang, and Shiping Chen. Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges.CoRR, abs/2105.07447, 2021

arXiv 2021

[3] [3]

Yearly NFT market report 2021

NonFungible.com. Yearly NFT market report 2021. Technical report, NonFungible.com, 2021

2021

[4] [4]

Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin

E. Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin. Decentralized society: Finding Web3’s soul.SSRN Electronic Journal, May 2022

2022

[5] [5]

ERC-5192: Minimal soulbound NFTs

Tim Daubensch ¨utz and Anders. ERC-5192: Minimal soulbound NFTs. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, July 2022

2022

[6] [6]

ERC-5484: Consensual soulbound tokens

Buzz Cai. ERC-5484: Consensual soulbound tokens. Ethereum Im- provement Proposals, August 2022

2022

[7] [7]

NFT wash trading: Quantifying suspicious behaviour in NFT markets

Victor von Wachter, Johannes Rude Jensen, Ferdinand Regner, and Omri Ross. NFT wash trading: Quantifying suspicious behaviour in NFT markets. InInternational Conferences on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) Workshops, volume 13412 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 299–311. Springer, 2023

2023

[8] [8]

Understanding security issues in the NFT ecosystem

Dipanjan Das, Priyanka Bose, Nicola Ruaro, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. Understanding security issues in the NFT ecosystem. InProceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pages 667–681. ACM, 2022

2022