This review of Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT or ORB collection in the scope of my ORB Review framework.
Conclusion
Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) excels in terms of immutability. No resources are stored on centralized servers. As for ownership, the collection offers a very permissive license for the asset art. However, this is a double-edged sword that can impact scarcity. While it is unlikely that the collection will disappear anytime soon, it would be beneficial if BAYC provided more time-proof information.
Immutability
Is ownership fully decentralized ? (2 points)
Everything lies on IPFS
2 points
Is the metadata pointing decentralized storage (1 point)
Everything lies on IPFS
1 points
Is the metadata found in decentralized storage (1 point)
Everything lies on IPFS
1 points
Is the asset on decentralized storage (2 point)
Everything lies on IPFS
2 points
Max points: 6
Total points: 6
Rating: 5 of 5
Ownability
Is ownership fully decentralized ? (3 points)
Everything lies on IPFS
2 points
Is there a licence agreement ? (1 point)
Yes
1 point
Asset Governance (2 point)
BAYC offers very permissive rights to token owners, allowing them to exploit the art for commercial purposes. While this is a great initiative, it also comes with several issues. First, the limitations are unclear. It seems possible to reissue new tokens on a new contract, assigning the same art ownership, which could nullify the scarcity. Potentially, the secondary owner might inherit a monkey asset that has already been largely commercially exploited, and exclusive licenses might have already been granted, limiting the actions of the current owner.
0.5 points
Clarification on intellectual property (2 point)
It is clear that the intellectual property is granted to the token holder, but the limitations are unclear. For example, what would happen if a token holder named "John" creates a new token and gives the asset a CC0 license, which grants complete freedom to anyone to use the art? If John sells the new token to Mike and the original token to Alice, can Alice void Mike's rights to commercially exploit the image? Due to the potential issues that could arise, we are only granting one point out of the two.
1 point
Transportability (1 point)
It is not clear whether it is possible to burn the token and reissue it on another chain. However, since owning the token provides control over the asset, it is possible to reissue the asset on another contract. The legitimacy of the new token is unclear.
0.5 points
Derivability (2 point)
Full rights are given to create derivative work.
2 points
Max points: 11
Total points: 8
Rating: 3.6 of 5
Longevity
Decentralized redundancy (max 4 points)
IPFS (2 points)
Asset and metadata is on IPFS
2 points
In-chain (3 points)
No
Arweave (2 points)
No
Other
No
Is there a permastory? (2 points)
All information lies on the official website, contract and other related story are not published on decentralized storage.
0 points
Transportability (2 points)
It is not clear whether it is possible to burn the token and reissue it on another chain. However, since owning the token provides control over the asset, it is possible to reissue the asset on another contract. The legitimacy of the new token is unclear.
1 points
Derivability (1 point)
Total freedom is given for exploitation
1 points
Max points: 9
Total points: 4
Rating: 2.2 of 5
You can find the review framework here