ERC-165 vs ERC-8330

Standard Interface Detection compared with Subject-Linked NAV Snapshot Oracle.

No shared functions

0 shared · 1 vs 24 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-8330 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)

`0xb39dcaa0`	`aggregatedNAV(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xcdfaf975`	`currentSnapshotIndex(bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0x474920a0`	`deviationThreshold(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xb30a6ebf`	`getSnapshot(bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0xe798ab25`	`heartbeat(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0x1e99ab55`	`invalidateSnapshot(bytes32,bytes32,uint256,bytes32)`
`0x3a900c95`	`isSnapshotCurrent(bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0xca79c9f5`	`isSnapshotInvalidated(bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0x7fbc65be`	`latestAggregationTimestamp(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xdc6b17d3`	`latestNAV(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xd8c7e1cd`	`latestNAVByProvider(bytes32,bytes32,address)`
`0x2b4a9247`	`latestNAVStatus(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0x66f1c4ee`	`maxValuationAge(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xf3ee3b2f`	`providerSnapshotAt(bytes32,bytes32,address,uint256)`
`0x15443fd4`	`providerSnapshotCount(bytes32,bytes32,address)`
`0x42a5e9ef`	`providerSubmissionAt(bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0xfa698ee6`	`providerSubmissionCount(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0x001ffb8d`	`publishNAV(bytes32,bytes32,bytes32,int256,uint8,uint64,bytes32,string,uint256)`
`0xcf0e9683`	`quorum(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0x649fd396`	`setAggregationConfig(bytes32,bytes32,uint256,uint256)`
`0xea527742`	`setNAVBasis(bytes32,bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xb475f53b`	`setStalenessConfig(bytes32,bytes32,uint64,uint64)`
`0x5ca5c864`	`snapshotCount(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xb7ed605d`	`streamNAVBasis(bytes32,bytes32)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-165 · ERC-8330