Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Julie B.
@bbjubjub.eth
Help me I had a stupid idea but I cant explain why it's stupid: could tx.origin be used instead of explicit approvals for authorizing token transfers? Like iff you initiate a transaction your tokens are all unlocked
6 replies
2 recasts
5 reactions
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
I think the explicit approval is to have a signature for the explicit intent of spending your tokens. Only because you are the origin of a tx does not tell the entire story of what should or should not happen with your tokens. I think this is also why only the direct peer is viewed as spender, because smart contracts may become token holders on your behalf when you "deposit" into them, which requires you to allow them to spend your tokens, even though you are the tx.origin.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Dylan
@elffjs
Is it common sentiment that everyone should be using account abstraction? In that case, tx.origin is not useful and batching the operation you want with an approve call is easier.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Julie B.
@bbjubjub.eth
Kludgy ERC4337-style account abstraction sure, but if we go with native AA (which may or may not happen) tx.origin can remain meaningful. In a sense the result would be similar to transient approvals except the approvals are implicit, and that's kind of how I came to this reflection
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
