ERC-6909 vs ERC-8065

Minimal Multi-Token Interface compared with Zero Knowledge Token Wrapper.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

1 shared · 5 vs 12 functions · 20% of the smaller surface

ERC-8065 lists ERC-6909 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (1)

0x01ffc9a7 supportsInterface(bytes4)

`0x426a8493`	`approve(address,uint256,uint256)`
`0x558a7297`	`setOperator(address,bool)`
`0x095bcdb6`	`transfer(address,uint256,uint256)`
`0xfe99049a`	`transferFrom(address,address,uint256,uint256)`

`0x9e48ff5a`	`deposit(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0x4e4efa41`	`getCommitLeafCount(uint256)`
`0x087e81a4`	`getCommitLeaves(uint256,uint256,uint256)`
`0x6bbb8620`	`getLatestCommitment(uint256)`
`0x9816f473`	`getUnderlying()`
`0x15b9f00e`	`hasCommitment(uint256,bytes32)`
`0x25bc3a17`	`previewDeposit(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xfde6c4a9`	`previewRemint(address,uint256,uint256,(bytes32,bytes32[],bytes,bytes,bool,bytes))`
`0xefb2150d`	`previewWithdraw(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xe01d9118`	`remint(address,uint256,uint256,(bytes32,bytes32[],bytes,bytes,bool,bytes))`
`0x0bd0ca9a`	`withdraw(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-6909 · ERC-8065