Whitelist MintLabz Deployer Address to Upload Contracts

MintLabz has recently integrated Osmosis blockchian. We are building a cross-chian NFT liquidity layer and this proposal is created to grant MintLabz Deployer address osmo18fks04k908j7akymsfvdjevyffajvmld25ncaw the ability to upload CosmWasm contracts to Osmosis without requiring governance approval for each contract upload. The address is controlled by MintLabz Team.

About MintLabz:

MintLabz is a cross-chain NFT liquidity layer and launchpad platform. We have built unique NFT collections on EVM and Cosmos chains for over 2 years. We recently provided smart contracts and interface for the Mad Scientists -First PFP NFT collection on osmosis.


Benefit for Osmosis:

The very successful launch of Mad Scientists shows a demand for NFTs on the Osmosis blockchain. With our unique approach of building NFT smart contracts tailored to the project’s needs, we would be able to bring more unique NFT-based solutions for Osmosis.

What are the contracts you want to upload?


Variations of cw721 smart contract (implementing different utilities) and our custom NFT mint-manager (handling the minting logic)

Those smart contracts has been battle-tested and used both on Juno, and used for Mad Scientists NFT mint MintLabz.io

Mint Labz has still not yet returned control of the Mad Scientists NFT contract to BackBone Labs. This is after graciously including them to make the promised deadlines. This is a GravveDigger collection and part of our protocol (per the SAIL prop) and until this is resolved we encourage all to vote No w/Veto if this goes on-chain.

Before any permission is granted they need to return our property.

These are serious accusations, I hope you understand that. Without any kind of proof, calling for a veto is unacceptable. If you have no evidence supporting your claim, please take it up elsewhere.
If you do, please do so respectfully.

As I understand, “Mint Labz” is a service provider, a launching platform, not a content creator or rights-holder.

The TOS is fairly clear

  1. Non-Custodial Platform:
    Section: “Noncustodial”
  2. Ownership and Control:
    Intellectual Property Rights: Sections titled “Intellectual Property Rights”, “User Content Transmitted Through the Platform”
    Ownership and Licensing: Mentioned under the section “Business User and Company’s rights”
  3. Dispute Resolution:
    Section: “Mediation”
    Section: “Legal Disputes”
  4. Legal Recourse:
    Section: “Legal Disputes”
    Governed and construed under the “General Legal Terms” section
  5. Sections: “Mediation” and “Legal Disputes”:
    Express the importance of maintaining documentation and are implicitly relevant to the sections regarding dispute resolution.

You’re making potentially harmful allegations against someone with zero proof and calling for them to have their deposit burned if they try to deploy anything they want to build here. Provide some proof or move along please.

Can you share insights or examples of the contracts used on Juno?

I am sure not everyone has followed Juno in the past few years :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

There is blockchain proof. Look at the props that brought these projects to life. Contracts and ownership are clear. Why would we allow a 3rd party mint solution to retain ownership of our IP? They are still in possession and that is not going to fly.

Unreturned property is a :triangular_flag_on_post: and gets a No w/Veto from us.

I have been extremely patient and I am being more than fair.

It does look like the address in the OP is the admin of the Mad Scientists contract.

Not sure how this happened though… Shouldn’t BBL have instantiated this rather than getting a third party to do it with seemingly no legal guarantee of admin transfer?

Upon learning of a security flaw in the original minting contract, we allowed them to service the mint to meet our commitments to the community and they are friends of RG. They have a closed minting system to protect the metadata and needed to configure their system.

Ironically there is no real value to holding this contract to anyone but us. It is an accomplishment and one we are proud of.

We made a lot of concessions to make this happen and we would like our property returned.

Once returned we can proceed with this consideration of their ask.

In all other aspects Mint labz has proven to be a competent and capable team.

As MintLabz we are only a service provider. We have been asked by RG to provide the minting and smart contract logic for the Mad Scientists NFT Mint. I believe that at some point RG and BBL will get to an agreement there and we as MintLabz do not want to be dragged into that dispute and I would much appreciate that happening in a different place than this proposal discussion topic.

As MintLabz we only provide the technology and the smart contracts we are deploying are our proprietary software and we have never transferred the IP rights to the codebase with the NFT collection mint. At the end of the day, it’s our value proposition as a company to build unique collections tailored to our client needs.

Although the smart contracts are not open-sourced they were seen by multiple parties and battle-tested on cosmos mainnets (Juno and Osmosis)

The goal of this proposal is to receive the ability to provide our clients with unique NFT collections. Based on client demands we usually add some unique features that alter the base functionality of the NFT which means we cannot go and reuse the same codebase but we need to expand it with each client to match the unique demands.

ah I misinterpreted the term ‘noncustodial’ ignore this comment. makes sense.