diff --git a/ERCS/erc-6381.md b/ERCS/erc-6381.md
index 51cf173340..cf1544d6c1 100644
--- a/ERCS/erc-6381.md
+++ b/ERCS/erc-6381.md
@@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ The proposal only accepts the Unicode identifier which is a `bytes4` value. This
 2. **Should the proposal use emojis to relay the impressions of NFTs or some other method?**\
 The impressions could have been done using user-supplied strings or numeric values, yet we decided to use emojis since they are a well established mean of relaying impressions and emotions.
 3. **Should the proposal establish an emotable extension or a common-good repository?**\
-Initially we set out to create an emotable extension to be used with any ERC-721 compilant tokens. However, we realized that the proposal would be more useful if it was a common-good repository of emotable tokens. This way, the tokens that can be reacted to are not only the new ones but also the old ones that have been around since before the proposal.\
+Initially we set out to create an emotable extension to be used with any ERC-721 compliant tokens. However, we realized that the proposal would be more useful if it was a common-good repository of emotable tokens. This way, the tokens that can be reacted to are not only the new ones but also the old ones that have been around since before the proposal.\
 In line with this decision, we decided to calculate a deterministic address for the repository smart contract. This way, the repository can be used by any NFT collection without the need to search for the address on the given chain.
 4. **Should we include only single-action operations, only multi-action operations, or both?**\
 We've considered including only single-action operations, where the user is only able to react with a single emoji to a single token, but we decided to include both single-action and multi-action operations. This way, the users can choose whether they want to emote or undo emote on a single token or on multiple tokens at once.\