Burned Assets Shouldn't Count Towards Total Assets in Collection
Lizzie Liz
I think this is a brilliant idea too!
I have held assets: for not wanting to disrespect the collectors or collections concerned.
However now in a market that imo is saturated. I would like to do my little bit for our green chain. I understand the need for free introduction, but this should have ended by now.
I have 45K assets ... at the moment our chain needs to reduce our overloaded database of items for purchase.
HELP? Please
Derrick Johnson
Collectors may want to try collect the same mint number within a NFT collection. I don't think it's possible to easily determine the mint number that's been burnt? It would be useful to list the burnt NFT mint number as additional information to the total number of NFTs burnt of a certain type, within a collection.
Jason Mossop
Issue across the board it is only showing total assets for all collections. A total minted and total in circulation would alleviate that. 2 numbers if you can accurately reflect the current total due to limitations you may possess.
F
Fabian Emilius
You always see how many NFTs were burned. We believe that issued supply represents all NFTs that were created / issued even if they are burned now
Jack
Fabian Emilius: How do we see that number, other than clicking into every single individual template, which is extremely cumbersome? Can it at least be put as a number alongside the total assets created number as well?
Prof Kaos
I believe that something regarding the asset total be changed, Once an asset is burned in a blend it no longer exists and therefore should not show in the overall count. If necessary a separate total should be calculated to reflect the assets used to create other assets. This is a definite way to show that a collection is deflating it's supply and therefore be reflected as such.