I’ve been looking at KCC721 for an upcoming NFT project and wanted to raise a potential issue with globally unique tickers.
A creator normally needs to publicly announce and market an NFT collection before minting begins. Under the current first-valid-genesis rule, doesn’t revealing the collection name/ticker create an opportunity for somebody else to deploy that ticker before the creator?
This becomes particularly problematic for artists announcing future collections or a roadmap, because somebody could reserve those tickers simply to squat them.
Since KCC721 collections already have a unique Covenant ID, could the Covenant ID instead be the canonical collection identity, with ticker/name treated as non-unique display metadata?
I noticed the KCC-0021 metadata discussion arrived at this model for covenant assets — Covenant ID as canonical identity and names/tickers as non-unique claims.
For example, two collections could both display as GHOST while wallets and marketplaces distinguish the official collection by Covenant ID, creator and verification.
Is there a technical reason KCC721 requires globally unique tickers rather than following that model?