ERC-3009 vs ERC-7598
Transfer With Authorization compared with Use contract signature for signed transfer.
No shared functions
0 shared · 2 vs 3 functions · 0% of the smaller surface
ERC-7598 lists ERC-3009 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-3009 (2)
0xb6b55f25 | deposit(uint256) |
0xa9059cbb | transfer(address,uint256) |
▶️ Only in ERC-7598 (3)
0xb7b72899 | cancelAuthorization(address,bytes32,bytes) |
0x88b7ab63 | receiveWithAuthorization(address,address,uint256,uint256,uint256,bytes32,bytes) |
0xcf092995 | transferWithAuthorization(address,address,uint256,uint256,uint256,bytes32,bytes) |
Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-3009 · ERC-7598