# Should I mint NFT or commit with "license-to" action?

The decision to mint an NFT versus writing a record with `license-to` [action](https://docs.numbersprotocol.io/introduction/numbers-protocol/defining-web3-assets/commit#actions) is largely dependent on the desired revenue-sharing capabilities, whether or not the license can be transferred.&#x20;

When it comes to revenue sharing, minting an NFT is the preferred option. NFTs serve as unique digital assets that enable ownership transfer and accompanying revenue rights. The latest owner information can be easily tracked by reading the NFT records.&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://2105393165-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FsJ8b1FUIurgQducTQQ2z%2Fuploads%2FyaV1pxwFMNnqYJKHWIW1%2FScreenshot%202023-04-20%20180623.png?alt=media&#x26;token=78f98e09-b24d-4f95-aa11-9bb19a68447f" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

Taking this screenshot as an example, if an NFT is minted, the reader of the commit records can tell from the asset history that they should track the NFT for the latest owner.&#x20;

On the other hand, records with `license-to` [action](https://docs.numbersprotocol.io/introduction/numbers-protocol/defining-web3-assets/commit#actions) is more suitable for one-time licensing to a specific party without any revenue sharing involved. These records indicate that a license has been granted for a particular asset, but do not provide a mechanism for revenue sharing and cannot be transferred. When reading the `license-to` records, one can see that it is a one-time license, and the wallet address shown in the actionResult represents the licensed party.

In conclusion, if revenue sharing is a top priority, then minting an NFT is the recommended approach. However, if the license is not transferred with no revenue-sharing involved, writing a license-to record would be enough to track the asset history.
