ERC-721 vs ERC-3475

Non-Fungible Token Standard compared with Abstract Storage Bonds.

No shared functions

0 shared · 10 vs 13 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-3475 lists ERC-721 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

`0x095ea7b3`	`approve(address,uint256)`
`0x70a08231`	`balanceOf(address)`
`0x081812fc`	`getApproved(uint256)`
`0xe985e9c5`	`isApprovedForAll(address,address)`
`0x6352211e`	`ownerOf(uint256)`
`0xb88d4fde`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x42842e0e`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256)`
`0xa22cb465`	`setApprovalForAll(address,bool)`
`0x01ffc9a7`	`supportsInterface(bytes4)`
`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-721 · ERC-3475