ERC-721 Standard
Functions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| balanceOf(owner) | |
| ownerOf(tokenId) | |
| approve(to, tokenId) | |
| getApproved(tokenId) | |
| setApprovalForAll(to, approved) | |
| isApprovedForAll(owner, operator) | |
| transferFrom(from, to, tokenId) | |
| safeTransferFrom(from, to, tokenId) | |
| safeTransferFrom(from, to, tokenId, _data) | |
| _safeTransferFrom(from, to, tokenId, _data) | |
| _exists(tokenId) | |
| _isApprovedOrOwner(spender, tokenId) | |
| _safeMint(to, tokenId) | |
| _safeMint(to, tokenId, _data) | |
| _mint(to, tokenId) | |
| _burn(owner, tokenId) | |
| _burn(tokenId) | |
| _transferFrom(from, to, tokenId) | |
| _checkOnERC721Received(from, to, tokenId, _data) |
Questions
Which ERC-721 extension — ERC-721A for gas-efficient minting, EIP-2981 for royalties, or soulbound modifications — creates the most durable utility for a new NFT project?
- At what mint price does the gas savings from ERC-721A versus standard ERC-721 change the economics enough to affect collection accessibility?
- How does the absence of enforced royalties (post-marketplace policy changes) change the long-term financial model for NFT creators?
- Which ERC-721 use case — PFP collectibles, gaming items, or on-chain credentials — will prove most durable over a 10-year horizon?