Skip to content

NIP-XX: NIP-99 Marketplace Listing Extension - #9

Draft
pats2sats wants to merge 1 commit into
OpenMarketsFoundation:mainfrom
sudonym-btc:draft/marketplace-listing-extension
Draft

NIP-XX: NIP-99 Marketplace Listing Extension#9
pats2sats wants to merge 1 commit into
OpenMarketsFoundation:mainfrom
sudonym-btc:draft/marketplace-listing-extension

Conversation

@pats2sats

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

Adds a generic marketplace extension for NIP-99 classified listings. The proposal defines shared listing tags and profile conventions that can be reused across marketplace verticals such as accommodation, vehicles, goods, rentals, and services.

What this defines

  • Marketplace profile tags using t values.
  • Generic listing tags for auto-acceptance, negotiability, rent-or-buy mode, duration limits, quantity, security deposit, minimum payment, maximum dispute period, and cancellation policy.
  • Promoted tag conventions for relay-filterable fields.
  • Guidance for profile-specific location encodings and client behavior.

Scope

This provides the generic listing layer. Profile-specific tags, such as accommodation features or other vertical-specific promoted tags, belong in separate profile specifications.

@ericfj2140

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Since this extension introduces rentOrBuy, minDuration, bookable quantity, and cancellation rules relative to an order start, could it explicitly define the boundary between generic rental terms and dated availability?

I do not think the generic listing layer needs to depend directly on NIP-52 or define an accommodation calendar. It would be useful, however, to state that these tags describe duration, capacity, and commercial policy only; they do not define which dates are available or how overlapping reservations consume inventory. Marketplace profiles or the order/availability layer would define those semantics, potentially reusing NIP-52 for calendar intervals.

That scope statement would prevent clients from interpreting quantity as either undated global stock or per-date capacity without knowing which model applies, and it would give accommodation and other rental profiles a clean place to standardize availability separately.

@ericfj2140ericfj2140 mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2026
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@pats2sats@ericfj2140