Wikidata:Property proposal/Ethereum token address

Ethereum token address edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: Ethereum token address (P10824) (Talk and documentation)

Description	unique address for a token on the Ethereum blockchain
Data type	External identifier
Example 1	Tether (Q47528658) → 0xdac17f958d2ee523a2206206994597c13d831ec7
Example 2	Shiba Inu (Q106853490) →0x95ad61b0a150d79219dcf64e1e6cc01f0b64c4ce
Example 3	Basic Attention Token (Q53039605)→0x0d8775f648430679a709e98d2b0cb6250d2887ef
Example 4	Maker (Q57305725) → 0x9f8f72aa9304c8b593d555f12ef6589cc3a579a2
Number of IDs in source	422,950+
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://etherscan.io/token/$1
See also	Wikidata:Property proposal/cryptocurrency address

Motivation edit

This external identifier can be used to represent any token on the Ethereum (Q16783523) blockchain. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

See Wikidata:Property proposal/cryptocurrency address--GZWDer (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added that to the see also in the template. However, the responses to that proposal aren't all relevant to this proposal. This is the address for a token rather than an individual or organisation's address to receive payment, the name of the token can be verified through multiple blockchain explorers which makes the abuse potential much lower than an unverifiable payment address. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the possibility of abuse is much smaller here. There may be some motivation for somebody to enter the wrong token to direct people to the wrong crypto-asset potentially and and then try to sell them the wrong asset? But that seems like a very remote possibility to what we had before, actual accounts where people could send money. Another question: does this also allow linking to NFT and auctions on Foundation? Can we for example use this to link to Everydays: the First 5000 Days (Q105947532) or are these different tokens? We should, as long as they are based on Etherium, correct? --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example the 0x3b3ee1931dc30c1957379fac9aba94d1c48a5405?a=41258 token is linked to this transaction which was the result of this this auction on Foundation for the patent disclosure forms of Crispr-Cas9. So we can say that 0x3b3ee1931dc30c1957379fac9aba94d1c48a5405?a=41258 represents the asset (in this case the patent forms)? But it seems that in addition to the token which just represents Foundation, there is also an ID (41258) associated with the asset, should we also represent this and how? --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Germartin1 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewis Hulbert, Hannes Röst, GZWDer, Germartin1: Done - Huh, I thought I updated this proposal yesterday but it seems not to have taken. Property is there anyway! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]