ERC-165 vs ERC-7984

Standard Interface Detection compared with Confidential Fungible Token.

No shared functions

0 shared · 1 vs 17 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-7984 lists ERC-165 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

0x01ffc9a7 supportsInterface(bytes4)

`0x344ff101`	`confidentialBalanceOf(address)`
`0x54095227`	`confidentialTotalSupply()`
`0x2fb74e62`	`confidentialTransfer(address,bytes32,bytes)`
`0x5bebed7e`	`confidentialTransfer(address,bytes32)`
`0xde642119`	`confidentialTransferAndCall(address,bytes32,bytes,bytes)`
`0x537d3c50`	`confidentialTransferAndCall(address,bytes32,bytes)`
`0xe064b9bb`	`confidentialTransferFrom(address,address,bytes32,bytes)`
`0xeb3155b5`	`confidentialTransferFrom(address,address,bytes32)`
`0x34c45743`	`confidentialTransferFromAndCall(address,address,bytes32,bytes,bytes)`
`0xc7b8a75e`	`confidentialTransferFromAndCall(address,address,bytes32,bytes)`
`0xe8a3d485`	`contractURI()`
`0x313ce567`	`decimals()`
`0xb6363cf2`	`isOperator(address,address)`
`0x06fdde03`	`name()`
`0x46083bfd`	`onConfidentialTransferReceived(address,address,bytes32,bytes)`
`0xd4febb96`	`setOperator(address,uint48)`
`0x95d89b41`	`symbol()`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-165 · ERC-7984