ERC-20 vs ERC-5679

Token Standard compared with Token Minting and Burning.

No shared functions

0 shared · 9 vs 7 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-5679 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)`

`0x44d17187`	`burn(address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x3fdaf33b`	`burn(address,uint256,uint256,bytes[])`
`0x5473422e`	`burnBatch(address,uint256[],uint256[],bytes)`
`0x94d008ef`	`mint(address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x8832e6e3`	`safeMint(address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x5cfa9297`	`safeMint(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xc39dfed8`	`safeMintBatch(address,uint256[],uint256[],bytes)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-20 · ERC-5679