Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ERC-4337 & ERC-7579 compliant modular smart accounts with ERC7579 signer/validator support #5119

Draft
wants to merge 78 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Amxx
Copy link
Collaborator

@Amxx Amxx commented Jul 22, 2024

Variant of #4991 with full 7579 based userop verification

PR Checklist

  • Tests
  • Documentation
  • Changeset entry (run npx changeset add)

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jul 22, 2024

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: bc4524a

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@ernestognw ernestognw added this to the 5.x milestone Aug 15, 2024
Copy link
Member

@ernestognw ernestognw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've been reviewing and it's looking good if we only consider the ERC7579 view of how to implement accounts.

I'd like to challenge the idea that ERC7579 is indeed the minimal version of an account; IMO, the validators are not a good fit for identities since they're not something you change frequently as you may do with a module. That would require a lot of operations during deployment (e.g. deploying multiple identities and enabling multiple modules).

From my point of view, identities are core to the functionality and we already have a standard for signature interoperability (ERC1271) so I'd like the identities approach to be more focused on making ERC1271 work out of the box rather than through a validator module.

I opened this PR to demonstrate how it simpler if we allow a generic identity to be plugged into an account (see AccountIdentity) or multiple (AccountMultiIdentity). I feel that approach is way leaner, but we can still write ERC7579 modules for more complex requirements (e.g. Governor as an executor).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants