# Add VIP: NFT Subscriptions **URL:** \ **Category:** VIPs\ **Created:** [September 1, 2023, 6:57am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49 "2023-09-01T06:57:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![favo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/favo/32/672_2.png) [@favo](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/favo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 6:57am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/1 "2023-09-01T06:57:33Z")
This VIP outlines a set of common methods for recurring and expirable subscriptions attached to NFTs. It is based on [ERC-5643](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-5643) and requires VIP-181. Ownership of NFTs can be used to verify access to certain areas. With this VIP recurring payments can be verified during access verification. One example is an on-going subscription for a dApp: - When payments are stopped, then access can be blocked while still providing access to past information using the NFT information. - When payment is restored, access can be restored with all past information attached to the NFT, including past payments. PR: [Add VIP for NFT Subscriptions by ifavo · Pull Request #51 · vechain/VIPs · GitHub](https://github.com/vechain/VIPs/pull/51) ---
**Author:** ![brettski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@brettski](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/brettski)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 9:38am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/2 "2023-09-01T09:38:37Z")
Hey @favo, In terms of this VIP is it not already possible to implement this given that it is an extension to ERC-721? What is stopping anyone from taking the ERC-5643 code and implementing it into their ERC-721? Do we need a separate standard for an extension to an existing standard that is already compatible on vechain? ---
**Author:** ![favo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/favo/32/672_2.png) [@favo](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/favo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 10:26am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/3 "2023-09-01T10:26:30Z")
I agree. Due 210, 181 and 180 being identical to ERC115/ERC721/ERC20 I was under the impression that other relevant ERCs are also expected. ---
**Author:** ![brettski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@brettski](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/brettski)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 1:52pm UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/4 "2023-09-01T13:52:55Z")
Fair point. It raises the question of whether we should continue to have a parallel VIP for each ERC? Personally, having a mirror VIP for each ERC in my eyes adds unnecessary confusion and complexity. ---
**Author:** ![favo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/favo/32/672_2.png) [@favo](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/favo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 2:26pm UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/5 "2023-09-01T14:26:28Z")
I agree with this as well. The current VIPs are already creating a lot of confusion and in the end the majority is implementing ERC templates from OpenZeppelin instead of basing their development on a VIP. It is also not a decision for me to generally reject ERCs as VIPs. I personally think that its not adding anything except work. And while I say that, I also want to repeat that retroactively paying benefits may be a better way to motivate activity than paying for ideas in a PR. ---
**Author:** ![brettski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@brettski](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/brettski)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 3:06pm UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/6 "2023-09-01T15:06:19Z")
Retroactive funding of public goods, like optimism, is a very good approach. It works very well for public goods to keep teams that are delivering and providing a public service funded. Our goal with the VIP funding is to generate ideas and improvements for the VechainThor blockchain which don’t necessarily fall into the public goods domain. A financial incentive, such as what we are seeking to provide, usually helps to gain some traction in terms of ideas and implementation. As you suggest perhaps a retroactive model is an improvement that we could move towards in the future. This would place the responsibility and accountability of building on the individual / team instead of on vechain. Perhaps there is a place for both models to exist. ---
**Author:** ![favo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/favo/32/672_2.png) [@favo](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/favo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 5:16pm UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/7 "2023-09-01T17:16:01Z")
@brettski I have three other improvements in my mind that I wonder if they fit into your expectations of a VIP: 1. Allow (X)Nodes to be transferred to contracts. (X)Nodes are currently not documented as VIP but are part of the core. 2. Adjustments to the standard Node-API to provide different data access (txpool for example). 3. Standard to share VTHO generation without sharing VET access. Would you think that one of those would be a valid Improvement Proposal? The second is a Pull Request to the standard API, the first requires adjustments by the core team. The third a contract template like the ERCs. ---
**Author:** ![brettski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@brettski](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/brettski)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2023, 8:47am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/8 "2023-09-04T08:47:26Z")
Hey @favo The below is just personal opinion. There are many other reviewers on the VIP reviewers team. 1. Allow (X)Nodes to be transferred to contracts: This is an interesting idea and for me would qualify as a VIP as it is specific to vechain. I guess my question would be what would be the benefit / use case / purpose of having the tech team deliver this? 2. Adjustments to the standard Node-API: For me certainly this would be a VIP as it is specific to vechain as it would be extending the functionality offered by Thor. 3. Standard to share VTHO generation without sharing VET access: Again I think this would qualify for me as it is something unique to vechain given the dual token model. If the VIPs are raised I guess it would stimulate a conversation in terms of use cases / benefits of each. ---
**Author:** ![peter.zhou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eada6e/32.png) [@peter.zhou](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/peter.zhou)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2023, 2:23am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/9 "2023-09-05T02:23:10Z")
It’s a question worthy of further discussion. ---
**Author:** ![peter.zhou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eada6e/32.png) [@peter.zhou](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/peter.zhou)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2023, 2:30am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/10 "2023-09-05T02:30:37Z")
Regarding the third point, is it something similar to [Add VIP: VET Custodian Contract Standard](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-vet-custodian-contract-standard/44) ? ---
**Author:** ![favo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/favo/32/672_2.png) [@favo](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/favo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2023, 6:38am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/11 "2023-09-05T06:38:30Z")
Its a bit different, I’d like to think of a solution where you can designate the receiver of your generated VTHO, so you do not lose control over your VET. In such a scenario vechain.energy’s fee delegation service could be powered the VTHO generation of other users without sending VTHO there. ---
**Author:** ![brettski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@brettski](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/brettski)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2023, 9:47am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/12 "2023-09-05T09:47:07Z")
So in other words it is the ability to delegate your VTHO generation to an address other than the address holding the VET assets. ---
**Author:** ![libotony](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/libotony/32/10_2.png) [@libotony](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/libotony)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2023, 5:38am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/13 "2023-09-15T05:38:47Z")
@favo @brettski How about we create a special VIP listing compatible ERCs, this list could be on-demand. ---
**Author:** ![libotony](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/libotony/32/10_2.png) [@libotony](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/libotony)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2023, 5:41am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/14 "2023-09-15T05:41:57Z")
How about `approve` and `transferFrom` workflow, this might not be ideal but at some point solves the issue. ---
**Author:** ![brettski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@brettski](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/brettski)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2023, 10:14am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/15 "2023-09-15T10:14:41Z")
@libotony is the suggestion here that there would be a catalogue of ERCs which would identify whether a given ERC is compatible with the VechainThor blockchain or not. If a given ERC standard is compatible there is no need for a VIP. If a given ERC standard is not compatible with the VechainThor blockchain, and given enough demand, a VIP could be raised requesting an implementation of this standard. Have I understood you correctly? ---
**Author:** ![libotony](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/vechain.discourse.group/libotony/32/10_2.png) [@libotony](https://vechain.discourse.group/u/libotony)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 8:01am UTC](https://vechain.discourse.group/t/add-vip-nft-subscriptions/49/16 "2023-09-18T08:01:14Z")
You are right, I think we don’t need ERC replicas here if it keep the same content as EIP, especially since we might need to maintain the content sync with the original EIP.