The Shared Storefront is OpenSea's proprietary NFT contract that artists can use to create for free on. OpenSea will allow you to create NFTs for free using their centralized servers as a temporary backend and they only get minted on-chain if they sell. It's understood that the Shared Storefront is controlled by OpenSea. While it's a nice feature for beginner artists it is also frequently abused by scams and copyright violators and unoriginal dupes. High quality NFTs issue their own contracts and open source the code.
I think they should open source the code for the contract and be transparent about it, but it's not surprising they maintain control over it.
An open source contract that adheres to the ERC721 or ERC1155 standard. I'm indifferent to the metadata URI, but some collectors prefer metadata to be fully on-chain or IPFS based. There's trade-offs with each one, so it really depends.
I am not talking about high quality art. That is fairly subjective.
I am referring mainly to the smart contract itself. One should be able to audit the contract to understand the transfer mechanics. Most NFT contracts are forks of popular open source implementations of ERC721 such as OpenZeppelin's (https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/erc721). You want to know things like max supply, mint mechanics, transfer mechanics, etc. And you want to be able to inspect the contract, such as this example: https://etherscan.io/token/0x1CB1A5e65610AEFF2551A50f76a87a7...
Why is low-effort bait like this being upvoted? Do people seriously want to have another off-topic flame war? It's like people are compelled to upvote generic sarcasm. Extremely disappointing.
I agree but it's noise and has nothing to do with the topic. Why do you want to encourage that instead of actually discussing the article?
I was glad to see it flagged and dead after my comment, but then someone even vouched for it. Like it's such an important comment that it needs to be heard. Even the premise is questionable (does quality presuppose it is moral?) but it's obvious what the parent means and commenting on it is just bait.
The article is about the low-quality implementation of platforms selling NFTs. I don't see how discussing the lack of quality of NFTs themselves, the "product" they sell, falls too far off the tree.
That's a really far-fetched and generous interpretation. The comment is obviously just sarcastic NFT bashing, picking up on the lowest denominator in the parent comment and not talking about the platform or article at all. Come on, we can do better. Instigating another generic NFT flame war is pointless and off-topic.
I think they should open source the code for the contract and be transparent about it, but it's not surprising they maintain control over it.