Proposal to Match Parity with CIP-0025 in CIP-0068 (New CIP?)

[thaddeusdiamond]

Wanted to solicit known contributors' opinions (have reached out on Twitter as well). I'm running into a problem with large collection mints (5-10k and over) where the amount of ADA being locked by minUTxO in the smart contract is gargantuan with CIP-0068. Now that ADA is closer to $1 my artist clients are getting frustrated by the increased costs of their mints (10-20% tax sometimes for cheap big collection mints).

I want to allow the metadata standard for CIP-0068 to optionally match CIP-0025 through a new version where metadata can either be:

1. The direct metadata for the NFT (backwards compatible)
2. A 721-style CIP-0025 metadata (using some sort of binary reserved key or extra data indicator to avoid naming conflicts)

This would also have the added benefit of easier migration from CIP-0025 to CIP-0068 (an occassional use case I support for my artists).

What do people think: should this be a new CIP or version 5 of CIP-0068? It would be pretty cross-cutting and apply to all of 222/333/444 tokens.

Tagging @rphair @Quantumplation @Crypto2099 @KtorZ @alessandrokonrad @SmaugPool for feedback

[thaddeusdiamond]

See #1112 for an example of how we could do it without a new CIP

[rphair]

@thaddeusdiamond I can't contribute technically to decide the best path forward, but I'd like to see active discussion on this issue and so we'll try to highlight it at the next CIP meeting (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/123)... though this will be the first meeting in 4 weeks so we may have a full agenda. But one of our CIP editors has a very active interest in these issues and I expect to get some very productive discussion from there (if we don't have it already by then).

What do people think: should this be a new CIP or version 5 of CIP-0068? It would be pretty cross-cutting and apply to all of 222/333/444 tokens.

Our convention is to require both a new version in CIP-0068 (so that existing mints can guarantee compatibility with the new label) and a new CIP even if only a new label is added: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0068/README.md#extending--modifying-this-cip — and a v5 of the CIP would also be an opportunity to indicate any changes to the already existing labels beyond just a version bump.

[rphair]

Removing from Triage now that #1112 has been practically considered at today's CIP meeting. @thaddeusdiamond I think it would avoid duplication of effort if you agree to close this and continue the related discussion in the PR thread instead of here... now that the CIP update is officially on the table. cc @Crypto2099