ERC-4626 vs ERC-6229

Tokenized Vaults compared with Tokenized Vaults with Lock-in Period.

No shared functions

0 shared · 16 vs 2 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-6229 lists ERC-4626 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

`0x38d52e0f`	`asset()`
`0x07a2d13a`	`convertToAssets(uint256)`
`0xc6e6f592`	`convertToShares(uint256)`
`0x6e553f65`	`deposit(uint256,address)`
`0x402d267d`	`maxDeposit(address)`
`0xc63d75b6`	`maxMint(address)`
`0xd905777e`	`maxRedeem(address)`
`0xce96cb77`	`maxWithdraw(address)`
`0x94bf804d`	`mint(uint256,address)`
`0xef8b30f7`	`previewDeposit(uint256)`
`0xb3d7f6b9`	`previewMint(uint256)`
`0x4cdad506`	`previewRedeem(uint256)`
`0x0a28a477`	`previewWithdraw(uint256)`
`0xba087652`	`redeem(uint256,address,address)`
`0x01e1d114`	`totalAssets()`
`0xb460af94`	`withdraw(uint256,address,address)`

`0x39ff40c5`	`scheduleDeposit(uint256)`
`0xd1c1b768`	`scheduleRedeem(uint256)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-4626 · ERC-6229