CellMates👾

There aren’t many teams in this space that I have met in the last 10 years that are as fast, smart and also open to suggestions from the community as @CellMatesERC Pleas take time to dig into this, will be worth it. I will make a new long post on it later again, to explain

The team of @CellMatesERC was able to discuss the new ERC 20721 protocol with @0xQuit one of the brightest devs TDLR: Quit is impressed with what we’ve built. Said he couldn’t deny that it was cool tech and being that these hybrids are brand new codebases/tokens, there are issues (as mentioned earlier today) relating to protocol composability (vaults for instance) that can be fixed assuming the demand is there to create incentive for a team to upgrade. The protocol stuff that is mentioned is used by small minority of nft holders but doesn’t affect the things that we built them for. Token works as intended. If someone wanted to use the protocols, they could just wrap CELL and it’d perform just fine. We feel the pros heavily outweigh the cons in order to give us an non-fungible, immutable and efficient token that helps solve the liq crisis by way of Uniswap. Full announcement from the team: Here’s a summary of our discussion with 0xQuit (There’s a TLDR at the bottom). He said that when he heard there was a hybrid (ERC404) he was keen to look at it because he assumed there would be a lot of cool stuff, instead, he was pretty disappointed because it was more or less a half baked ERC-20 with some images added on. He did mention that he was impressed with CELL because we put more than 10 minutes of effort into it and attempt to do something differently. Now to his concerns with these dual standards. Because these hybrids need to work for both ERC20 and ERC721 (as they are 1 contract, not 2 like his DN404), the transferFrom() method can have unexpected consequences in contracts that assume only ERC20 functionality (or like his last thread, vaults, which can handle both). As a basic example let's imagine something like a staking contract that accepts ERC20 and tracks my deposits so I can withdraw it later. I can transfer in 4 CELLs (not the wrapped ones) and later I can withdraw 4 CELLs and that's fine because it's using the ERC20 part. Now the issue comes when I make the staking contract use the ERC721 part without it being aware of it, for example, I transfer 257 (which doesn't mean 257 tokens but rather CELL #257) and the staking contract sets my balance to 257 even though it only received 1 CELL (#257). I can then withdraw everything from the staking contract because I have an incorrect balance and transferring ERC20 out still works fine as long as the contract doesn't go negative (which would revert my tx). For ERC404 the same issue is present but it's the inverse. Their NFT IDs are small numbers whereas the ERC20 part is large (in 1e18 scale). To exploit it this time we just need to transfer a tiny bit of ERC20 tokens into it and we can withdraw all the NFTs the contract holds by just transferring their IDs as ERC20 values then we can withdraw the remainder of our balance. [11:14]So yeah, because these hybrids need to overload the functions to support both standards it does create potential problems in contracts that don't expect it. That being said there are simple fixes for both of these things but it relies on them being integrated properly (which may be impossible for older products). It is good to note that the major places they will be used (Uniswap and Opensea) appear to have no major issues with this as they already implement a bunch of checks to enforce safety for other contracts that may be broken. To solve the issue with our staking contract, lets say this time we had a normal ERC20 that has a 10% fee on transfer, depositing 100 would set our balance to 100 in the staking contract but 10 would have been burned (so staking only holds 90). Trying to withdraw my staking balance would either result in an error (not enough tokens) or result in me taking someone else's tokens (making them much less likely to withdraw anything). Easy way to fix this is having the contract check the balance before, transfer the tokens and then credit the depositor with the difference between its current balance and balance before. In the CELL example above, even though we transferred 257 (which is actually token #257) the balance only increases by 1 and doing what we said before should correctly credit us 1, not 257. If you read the wrap() function in wCELL it's basically doing exactly that. So all in all, yes, there's some issues with it being composable with a lot of stuff but in general no one will be using CELL or hybrid derivatives in that way and if something new is being made specifically for these hybrid contracts, it will most likely do things in a way that works (otherwise the product just won't be used). 🌕🐱

After reading the discord and seeing what the team has up their sleeves and also talking a lot about it with @natealex it made sense to double down on my conviction I just added around 0.8 $WCELL and now have a total of 1.89 $CWELL and around 27 ETH in the game At a marketcap of around $ 6 million and it being a new protocol with potential, where I think a lot of people don't understand it yet, but also where the devs have to build some additional stuff to make it more useable for a bigger audience. So at this marketcap I won't really care about short-term volatility as the liquidity isn't that thick and people are arbitraging CELL and WCELL. My thesis is long-term and again this will be a hero or a 0 play.

The reason why I invested 20 ETH into @CellMatesERC and it's new ERC20721 In this longer post I will 'dumb down' how I see the technical aspect of it and what the utility can bring for NFTs in this space. It's all about Liquidity! Thanks to @blur_io we have gotten a lot of extra liquidity in this space, which is helpful. Thanks to that traders can trade NFTs, but it's still hard, traders can withdraw their liquidity and a lot of collections are dominated by a few people and go through huge drops and at the end of the day, a reward for providing liquidity will go away, with no incentive, there is no reason to do it. We know liquidity pools very well from tokens, we for example all know @Uniswap and how you can bring liquidity into pools, single sided or 2 ways (the token + ETH for example). In return you get rewards providing liquidity. A concept that has been around for a few years now and which has been really helpful. Personally almost never use any CEX anymore and for all my tokens I just use Uniswap as it's easy, you can go in and out fast. So what if I told you with ERC20721, you can trade your NFTs through Uniswap. You can provide liquidity and get rewarded for it. In a way that's what it does, in a nutshell. Let's look at CellMates. It has 2 tokens 1) $CELL and 2) $WCELL. $CELL is the token of the NFTs, there are 256 of them, which is the same supply as the NFTs and the tokens. So you can only buy 1 $CELL, which is the token and the NFT. $WCELL is the fractionalized token of the NFTs, you can now split into millions and can essentially buy $ 1 of $WCELL. You can do this through Uniswap, it's essentially a token that's being traded now. 1 $CELL will always be 1 $WCELL. However $WCELL can be divided into many pieces. So why is this helpful for the space. Well let's say you want to buy a @cryptopunks but you don't have $ 150,000 lying around. You do have $ 15,000 and would like to own a part. There are 10,000 Punks and we now have the $PUNKS token which is 10,000 of them and the $WPUNKS token which is still 10,000 but you now can buy for example 0.1 $WPUNKS which is $ 15,000. You now are invested in @cryptopunks rather than owning one, you own 0.1. When you buy 0.9 $WPUNKS more over time, you own 1 $WPUNKS, which you can trade for a $PUNKS and get your NFT. So this is a part I am not really sure about how this will work. With @CellMatesERC there are 256 NFTs, when you wrap your $WCELLS for a $CELLS, you get the first token ID that's in line. So based on rarity, a lot of people will wait for it to be a rare one and swap that one. I am curious, practically how this would work with a bigger collections, like Cryptopunks that has a lot of traits, etc. But afaik, CellMates did solve this, but will learn more about that in the future. I will focus on the basis now, and that's what I explained, buying into a NFT project without owning a whole NFT, which especially is helpful for more priced collections. The other perk is, tokens just always have bigger liquidity pools, its easier to swap tokens in and out, and that's the advantage you get as well. I think the fact you can just Uniswap, just builds to this case. Its really easy to build an NFT collection, add liquidity to it and now collection can be trader in 2 ways, through the NFTs itself but also in a fractionalized way through the wrapped token. For something to work it all comes down to the useability of it, so far how this works, it's pretty easy. Nobody really needed to explain it to me more than 3 minutes and now it's easy. What did I do? 1) I bought $WCELL on Uniswap 2) I used @CellMatesERC their website and swapped my $WCELL for $CELL 3) I got my NFT in my wallet It's simple as that. If I don't want to list my NFT and wait for it to be sold, I can alway just wrap it back to $WCELLS and sell it into the liquidity of the pool, or in small parts to avoid slippage. At the moment the marketcap is 256 x $ 45,000 = $ 11.5 million. Which obviously is fairly low, especially compared to @Pandora_ERC404 at $ 158 million. It has a lot of potential in my opinion, however it depends on a lot of factors: * How will the tech reach people * Will it be adopted * Will there be a community around it * When will there be an official audit and what will the outcome be * Will people see the useability of it and so on For now I am invested and going to learn more about it and try to help out a bit and see if it really has legs and potential. $WCELL can be found here: dexscreener.com/ethereum/0x6… 🌕😼