ERC-1066 vs ERC-2009
Status Codes compared with Compliance Service.
No shared functions
0 shared · 3 vs 15 functions · 0% of the smaller surface
ERC-2009 lists ERC-1066 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.
🤝 Shared (0)
None.
◀️ Only in ERC-1066 (3)
0xe8927fbc | increase() |
0x0ef94a6c | isInt(uint256) |
0x67927c02 | safeIncrement(uint8) |
▶️ Only in ERC-2009 (15)
0x9776aacf | addToken(bytes32,address) |
0x61808113 | authorizeAccumulatedOperator(address) |
0xfbf28529 | checkBurnAllowed(bytes32,address,uint256) |
0xb52711d3 | checkMintAllowed(bytes32,address,uint256) |
0x34279642 | checkTransferAllowed(bytes32,address,address,uint256) |
0x625b98db | checkTransferFromAllowed(bytes32,address,address,address,uint256) |
0xf1537686 | getTokenId(address) |
0xe4c2dcad | isAccumulatedOperatorFor(address,bytes32) |
0x19f37361 | isToken(address) |
0x224e7462 | removeToken(bytes32) |
0x378ca042 | replaceToken(bytes32,address) |
0x56ecc4fc | revokeAccumulatedOperator(address) |
0xb3142349 | updateBurnAccumulated(bytes32,address,uint256) |
0xf866fc6f | updateMintAccumulated(bytes32,address,uint256) |
0x96d6647c | updateTransferAccumulated(bytes32,address,address,uint256) |
Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-1066 · ERC-2009