Concordium operates on an account-based blockchain architecture, where users can create accounts, each identified by a unique address. These accounts, that we call native accounts throughout this document, serve as the fundamental units for interacting with the Concordium blockchain. Native accounts are associated with a real-world identity, which is linked to an identity object stored by an identity provider.
The proposed Chaperone standard allows for non-native users to interact with on-chain assets through a Chaperone (that is, a native account with an identity object).
Currently, the draft standard proposal is available as a work document, and is open for feedback from the community.
Interesting new proposal @erasmus however i would like to raise some questions / comments which i think are not factored in.
We already onboard all normal world wide web users, who are not yet blockchain enabled in Shield of Privacy and we do all of this without giving the users access to tokens and actions with tokens on our legal name; they need to create an ID to get access to tokens etc. as we would never take on the legal risk of the consumer.
We use CIS-3 and SponsoredPayment to handle all payments for NFT minting but you can just as well resolve what Chaperone Accounts is attempting to do using CIS-3 from a user experience perspective, assuming that “banana coins” and other in-game items from example 1 are game assets.
In Gamefi projects usually does not use the real token ingame, instead they have a smart contract where you can swap ingame virtuel currency for actual tokens and the reason for this is that is that no-one hardcodes there blockchain logics into the game, instead its an abstraction layer and APIs you call from say Unity to your virtual currency system etc. and then only when you move tokens in or out of the game is there interaction with the smart contract.
NFTs are typically purchased, owned and then staked into the game as assets, and once they are staked ingame via the smartcontract they will appear in the game, but due to the virtual relation again of the NFTs meta layer now being actively present in the smartcontract and then you can play the game, but in this case the user does not have a wallet nor own the NFT.
It seems to me that the Chaperone Account model does not really factor in how gamefi works today but instead introduces a new use case where the ingame assets are not virtual but are on-chain and directly integrated to the game; are we sure this model is attractive to the Gamefi projects?
Also how does the user claim the tokens and NFTs? I.e. would they not also require a full KYC at this point; And if they require a full KYC to get the tokens out why not focus on making it easier to KYC to begin with that onboards them to all ecosystem projects at once instead of having the project handle all ID responsibility.
The strongest USP of Concordium could be seamless ID and KYC.
Since 3 months already passed. Here is an update on the smart-contract-wallet work done so far:
Smart contract wallets intend to allow users to hold/trade assets even if they don’t own CCD (and haven’t created a native account with full KYC yet) in a self-custodial manner. A third party is needed to sponsor the transaction, but can be incentivized to do so (alternatively after acquiring CCD and creating a full native account, an asset owner can withdraw their assets to a native account themself avoiding the third party).
We expect projects to customize the smart contract wallet to their business model. One potential use can be, to onboard customers in a light mode (using the smart-contract-wallet), allowing them to try out the functionalities of the project’s platform, and only when the assets held by a customer exceed a threshold, to poke them to create a nativeAccount with full KYC.