@mixmaster
But why would you delete the asset in the first place instead of just marking it as “archived” with an explanation? Deleting the assets would just create a worse user experience.
Well maybe there could be some kind of trash namespace to which all assets are transfered when the original namespace vanishes. Would that be ok for you? 
In our original design, the namespace that is not renewed will have its assets attached to a namepsace called orphan. All expired namespaces with assets will be named with a prefix called orphan.
We have thought about it, but in most cases, it is true that the value of the asset is only as good as the presence of the creator. Nothing Else Matter (NEM).
But we also thought of the unlikely event of the namespace having expired and there is still use for it. In this case, we have the orphan.xxx.yyy.*
@mixmaster I think that would way better than deleting them, yes. Like trash.oldcompanysnamespace.giftcards
Well there you go then. Everyone can be happy now 
I don’t come here often enough. If it was in the telegram, I would have interjected. 
Just to be precise, as implemented right now there is no orphan namespace where asset can get transferred to. They simply vanish.
But one year is a long time and we could change it of course ^^
Whats the downside of an orphan/trash namespace?
it might confuse people… like how do i ‘untrash’ asset xyz? i didn’t ‘move’ it to trash… etc
more confusing than when it is just gone? 
Well I think it will be confronting if it is just gone , but in reality; how big is the chance that you will ever get value from your trash/orphan asset?
It would be like pink sheets for chapter 11 companies (MLTQQ)… scam paradise!
that noname.xx.yy sounds lot better
even if it land in the noname tree the asset will have its issuer stored with them
and a issuer who come alive again should have the possibility to move assets he created towards a new namespace and so fix the problem
mcdonalds.restaurants.newyork.voucher
could this way if burgerking buys mcdonalds be easy moved towards
burgerking.restaurants.newyork.voucher
this process should be possible if owner of other namespace and issuer of asset both agree with their keys
u need to spends a lot brainwork in not only transfer assets around but also issuer rights and namespace placement of the assets
its not like the usecases are what u think they are
the usecases are what the maket will demand later on
so be prepared there there will be lot lot different ways how assets and namespace can be utilized and lot of them we cant imagine now
and dont always use the easy joker that people have to do that outside of NEM
like mcdonald need to give the keys of his issuer wallet towards burgerking
because things not always that easy
what if burgerking only bought mcdonalds restaurants in USA but not europe but the assets for europe and USA ceated with the same key
u see stuff can become very easy very complicated
i understand the first version will be primitive but please never try to defend that because there will be no other usecases important enought to be handled with mossaik
always say everything is possible its just a matter of required time and demand to make it happen
well compared to just seeing it vanish… xD
however there should be some kind of notification what happened to the asset and why it’s now gonw or renamed or whatever the final solution will be
It’s more complicated to make things easy than it is easy to complicate things
After reading this thread I can see points to both sides. I can think of some instances where both expiring and non-expiring could be useful. But I think most of the cases expiring is better. If nobody is there to support the asset, then it is probably worthless, but maybe not always.
I think the better approach then would to be to have variable fees and variable expirations. So that basically more a person pays in fees when setting up the namespace, the longer the expiration.
It seems like some people might want an asset to last 30 days, or 4 years, or indefinitely. In which case it would be nice if a person could just pick their time and their fee. For somebody like cryptonit who wants an asset to not expire, he could pick 99 years. For others, like those making the NEMstake asset, they could pick a year and then extend if their project is delayed.
Such a fee might also indicate a project manager’s dedication. Like if Crypto Apex got a namespace for only 2 weeks, then I might be a little worried about using it as an exchange, but if they bought one for 5 years, then I could think they were more serious.
2 Likes
read the stuff i wrote about mcdonalds and burgerking
such stuff will happen
u must be prepared to provide ways to transfer not only ownership of assets units additional transfer ownership of namespaces and even ability to move the issuer rights towards other owner and into other namepsace
everything that can happen to a big companpany must be able in assets namespaces too
rename split transfer ownership change manager board (multisig addresses responsible for management…) and and and
3 Likes
If company B is sold to company A, could company A just set up a portal that says “turn in your company B assets here and you will be reissued company A assets in the same quantity for the same product?” Or maybe just scan the chain and send all the holders of B asset an A asset as a replacement with the B asset was expiring?
There should “simply” be a way to transfer namespaces between accounts. The company B can just transfer their namespace to company A and that’s that. If company A doesn’t want those assets to be under the company name of B then they should just let that namespace expire and issue new assets to asset holders of the old asset. Of course they could do that without transfering the namespace but there should still be a way imho. Just like company A would get ownership of companyb.com (i.e. their web domain).
Once on the testnet I squatted on Gimre’s name. He said he had a good reason to make namespaces transferable then. hahahaha. I’m pretty sure it is possible and planned for a later version.