The market-driven rarity structure for specific NFT collections, according to a member of the community, is destroyed by the new rarity ranking algorithm. Rarity ranking of nonfungible tokens (NFTs) on an online marketplace may help collectors decide whether or not to purchase NFTs, but some believe that doing so may do more harm than good.
An NFT investor raised a number of concerns about OpenRarity, the new rarity ranking system used by NFT marketplace OpenSea, in a tweet. The community member claimed that including “rank” in the NFT listing without mentioning “rarity” anywhere could be misconstrued.
By enabling the OpenRarity ranking mechanism, the community member said, the Moonbirds NFT collection destroyed its own market-driven rarity structure and transformed every NFT into a “floor Moonbird.” The community member offered the collection as an example. The NFT collector also criticised Proof CEO Kevin Rose for not disabling the OpenRarity rating function for the collection. The proof is the firm that produced Moonbird.
Several days after receiving the suggestions, the NFT marketplace made some adjustments to the ranking system. NFT listings currently show “rarity rank” rather than just the rank. The NFT marketplace has also included a trait count to the ranking algorithm as well as a way to categorise items based on their unique characteristics before utilising any other data to boost their rating.
After the changes, OpenSea indicated that it will make the function for determining rarity available to all chains’ eligible collections. On October 25, the adjustment will go into effect. The most common type of feedback received, according to the NFT market, is questions regarding how to acquire access. To make this access available to more collections, the marketplace will add the feature to each supported blockchain.
On September 21, the NFT marketplace initially developed the NFT ranking system in order to provide collectors with a reliable rarity ranking. The OpenRarity protocol, which aims to standardise the rarity technique across NFT platforms, was developed through cooperation amongst NFT groups.
There are authorities who argue that the ‘insider trading’ allegation in the OpenSea case is true.
An ex-employee of nonfungible token (NFT) marketplace OpenSea requested that references to “insider trading” be removed from his charges, but US prosecutors objected to the request.
According to the prosecution, the sentence accurately sums up the offences that former OpenSea product manager Nathaniel Chastain is charged within a memo that was submitted on October 14.
According to Law360, it was in response to Chastain’s motion to stop using the phrase on October 3.
A jury may be swayed by the term “insider trading” if Chastain’s case goes to trial, he claimed, adding that the term is “inflammatory” and has nothing to do with the claims against him.
In August, his legal team also asserted that “insider trading” only applied to securities and not to non-financial transactions, and that the phrase was used to attract media attention and sway the jury’s perception of him. He further noted that the term only applied to stocks and not to NFTs.
The phrase “accurately conveys” the allegations made against him, according to the prosecution, and the term is not “so fundamentally provocative” as to require the “extreme measure” of having it deleted from his charges.
They also criticised his assertion that insider trading solely applied to the trading of securities, calling it a “legal mistake” and an “unduly constricted understanding of the phrase,” and asserting that it can pertain to a variety of frauds in which someone with inside information trades assets.
Before Chastain’s accusations, the phrase “insider trading” had never been used in connection with cryptocurrency or NFTs.
Alma Angotti, a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawyer, said the possibility of NFTs being categorised as securities in this case in June, not long after Chastain was charged.
