An immediate difference is that ERC-721 or I believe any token on Ethereum
is transferable. I can send it to you, you could sell it to someone else
using a platform like OpenSea, etc.
This is not obviously possible using the Indy stack today without some hack
involving the issuer of the credential revoking and re-issuing it. I
believe there is some work in Ursa around the crypto for transferrable
credentials but not sure what status and priority this has.
Also, the ERC-721 keeps track of tokens and token holder addresses
available to anyone who queries the contract.
They are a couple that come to mind,
Will
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:05 PM Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:
> I hope this isn’t stretching the favorable use of the CCG mailing list…
>
>
>
> When are Hyperledger Indy/Sovrin VCs better than Ethereum smart contracts
> for NFEs/NFTs (non-fungible entities/tokens)?
>
>
>
> It seems obvious but I don't have a detailed/worked out answer. One
> project I'm associated with wants to use the ERC-721 Non-Fungible Token
> Standard on Ethereum but I believe VCs are a better route to take. Part of
> the desire to stay on Ethereum is there is quite a vibrant NFT community on
> Ethereum and lots of different EC-721 tokens.
>
>
>
> https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721
>
>
>
> What are the considerations/decision points/knock-offs?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman
>
> Sovrin Foundation Self-Sovereignist
>
>
>
> Self-Sovereign Blockchain Architect
>
> Trusted Digital Web
>
> Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab
>
> Parallelspace Corporation
>
>
>
>
>
