ERC-7484 vs ERC-7579

Registry Extension for ERC-7579 compared with Minimal Modular Smart Accounts.

No shared functions

0 shared · 7 vs 12 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-7484 lists ERC-7579 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

`0x0bb30abc`	`check(address,address[],uint256)`
`0x2ed94467`	`check(address,uint256,address[],uint256)`
`0x96fb7217`	`check(address,uint256)`
`0xc23697a8`	`check(address)`
`0x529562a1`	`checkForAccount(address,address,uint256)`
`0x4c13560c`	`checkForAccount(address,address)`
`0xf05c04e1`	`trustAttesters(uint8,address[])`

`0x9cfd7cff`	`accountId()`
`0xe9ae5c53`	`execute(bytes32,bytes)`
`0xd691c964`	`executeFromExecutor(bytes32,bytes)`
`0x9517e29f`	`installModule(uint256,address,bytes)`
`0x112d3a7d`	`isModuleInstalled(uint256,address,bytes)`
`0xecd05961`	`isModuleType(uint256)`
`0xf551e2ee`	`isValidSignatureWithSender(address,bytes32,bytes)`
`0x6d61fe70`	`onInstall(bytes)`
`0x8a91b0e3`	`onUninstall(bytes)`
`0xd03c7914`	`supportsExecutionMode(bytes32)`
`0xf2dc691d`	`supportsModule(uint256)`
`0xa71763a8`	`uninstallModule(uint256,address,bytes)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-7484 · ERC-7579