ERC-721 vs ERC-8354

Non-Fungible Token Standard compared with Confidential Agent Policy Verdicts.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

1 shared · 10 vs 10 functions · 10% of the smaller surface

ERC-8354 lists ERC-721 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)

`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)`
`0x23b872dd`	`transferFrom(address,address,uint256)`

`0x8b5c79b1`	`consume((uint256,bytes32,bytes32,bytes32,address,uint64,bytes32,uint8,uint8),bytes,bytes)`
`0xd7525232`	`consume((uint256,bytes32,bytes32,bytes32,address,uint64,bytes32,uint8,uint8),bytes)`
`0xee9eee3e`	`currentRoot(bytes32)`
`0x00e35488`	`domain(bytes32)`
`0xd631b77a`	`isConsumed(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0xe90c46b3`	`isRootAcceptable(bytes32,bytes32)`
`0x8f0183bd`	`policyDomain()`
`0x3c624403`	`verdictDigest((uint256,bytes32,bytes32,bytes32,address,uint64,bytes32,uint8,uint8))`
`0x608759aa`	`verify((uint256,bytes32,bytes32,bytes32,address,uint64,bytes32,uint8,uint8),bytes)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-721 · ERC-8354