[AIP-99][Discussion] Disable Safe Burn of User-Owned Objects

[thepomeranian]

AIP Discussion

Safe burn was originally described in AIP-45, which allowed users to tombstone their objects and remove direct linkage of an undeletable, also known as soulbound, object to an account. This AIP seeks to disable safe object burn, as it caused extra complexity, and sometimes unexpected consequences. Especially, this behavior became less clear when the burn address manages the object, while the owner was the original owner. Owners of burned objects will still be able to unburn and recover their tombstoned objects.

Goals
As a result of this AIP, users will still be able to unburn their burnt objects, but will not be able to burn any new objects. This will reduce complexity and some interesting edge cases associated.

If we delay enacting this, there may be more burnt objects, which increase risk to new protocols due to the nuanced behaviors around burnt objects.

Out of Scope
This removes the previous mitigation, since users cannot opt out of receiving unsolicited content. Wallets or other platforms will need to come up with a standardized way of hiding unwanted items.

Additionally, we will not be preventing unburning existing burnt objects at this time.

Read more about it here: https://github.com/aptos-foundation/AIPs/blob/main/aips/aip-99.md

[dancespiele]

@thepomeranian I would like to comment that the decision to disable the usage burn without giving an alternative is a big mistake in my point of view and the reason that in the future decide don't build for aptos anymore plus warning other developers about building in this network.

The impact since it was disable is that the app that I built for Ghost Lost community, is now useless, ( here you can see the app ), and there is not workaround because if instead of burn I try to transfer to object address it depends if the owner enable transfer digital assets or not but scammers will never enable it.

It is fine that your team want to reduce complexity but not reducing functionalities at the same time, if your team wants to remove burn then collection owner should not decide if the DA is transferable or not and it should be always transferable, for me this is even better and I guess that your team wanted to give a feature for collections owners like Cellana, that reflect the voting amount of an account by DA, to prevent that this account by accident can transfer it but it is responsibility of the user and the user should have the total control of his/her asset which own and for another side is allowing that scammers can spam accounts with scam DA avoiding to user wallets get rid of them.

And ending with a reflection, if your team decide to disable a functionality without alternative making apps useless I cannot trust anymore building on Aptos Network, if some feature is complex then is better don't offer it from the beginning but you cannot offer and after remove it later without alternative because there are builders developing apps around that feature.