ERC-20 vs ERC-3475

Token Standard compared with Abstract Storage Bonds.

No shared functions

0 shared · 9 vs 13 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-3475 lists ERC-20 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

`0xdd62ed3e`	`allowance(address,address)`
`0x095ea7b3`	`approve(address,uint256)`
`0x70a08231`	`balanceOf(address)`
`0x313ce567`	`decimals()`
`0x06fdde03`	`name()`
`0x95d89b41`	`symbol()`
`0x18160ddd`	`totalSupply()`
`0xa9059cbb`	`transfer(address,uint256)`
`0x23b872dd`	`transferFrom(address,address,uint256)`

`0xb15edbe5`	`activeSupply(uint256,uint256)`
`0x443b63b9`	`allowance(address,address,uint256,uint256)`
`0x2d760d57`	`balanceOf(address,uint256,uint256)`
`0xbc3c19f7`	`burnedSupply(uint256,uint256)`
`0x3cf3a604`	`classMetadata(uint256)`
`0xc7da92e1`	`classValues(uint256,uint256)`
`0x572e5ef2`	`getProgress(uint256,uint256)`
`0x1fa03a2b`	`isApprovedFor(address,address)`
`0x029ba4eb`	`nonceMetadata(uint256,uint256)`
`0x693f5548`	`nonceValues(uint256,uint256,uint256)`
`0xccea7b86`	`redeemedSupply(uint256,uint256)`
`0x4bb95aa2`	`setApprovalFor(address,bool)`
`0xc2458d6b`	`totalSupply(uint256,uint256)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-20 · ERC-3475