This is not a criticism, but an observation as I pondered key security; the introduction of ENS names incentivising social capital aggregation to a single address has made wallet security a lot harder than with anonymous addresses that have no incentive for aggregation and hence allow many wallets to decentralise risk.

Tradfi coder by day, hacker by night. Doesn’t know night from day. Freelance scribe. Dad cook. Dog butler.  Happy Grandpa. Draws badly.

Decentralized public social capital aggregation is not bad?

What's wrong with 6529s 3 addy vault setup? And delegatecash (would've been cool if that was built on ens). Obv u could resolve ur .eth to a new addy too

everything makes me laugh haha
give premium fees back to past owners
base.namespace.tech/enskeychain
bento.me/broke

It’s definitely not bad - I think it’s an innovation.  All I’m pondering is the reality that you have one master key and that’s a single point of failure. Thinking on it - as most wallets are bip32 derived key wallets anyway, then it’s the rule to have a master key and name, anyway. So, how to help deal it?

Using vault address circumvents most of the risk

There's always the risk of losing individual accs too. Ppl prob more careless with m

Like the idea of accruing info to broke.eth but ig this could also be done by linking addys, but how do other dapps access that

Having many wallets same headache as multiple passwords