EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc pfp

EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc

@eulerlagrange.eth

Doesn’t the fact that a smart contract wallet is transferable break the idea of a soul bound token? SBTs are non-transferable, but if a contract wallet owns an SBT the wallet can be transferred to someone else.

17 replies

0 recast

19 reactions

Wilson Cusack pfp

If you’re prepared to trade your entire wallet as a proxy to trade your sbt, then I think that’s pretty close to trading your private key and is acceptable :)

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

sean pfp

what’s the soul?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

timdaub pfp

Hey if you're interested in this stuff please feel free to pick my brain. I spent months thinking through a lot of this stuff and I'm happy to share what I learned. Here's an overview post I wrote on a related topic: https://proofinprogress.com/posts/2022-05-30/what-are-account-bound-tokens.html

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

timdaub pfp

IMO the most practical framing I could come up with is that SBTs are transferable but through an intermediary that e.g. unlocks the token for a limited time. E.g. your university issuing your certificate to a new address. At least that's the idea behind ERC5192 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unFTcUjQE3o

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

boscolo.eth pfp

Maybe it would be more clear to refer to SBTs as Address Bound Tokens. 🤔

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

woj ツ pfp

depends on your use case, but yeah, in most cases it does

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍 pfp

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍

Maybe the contract wallet *is* the soul, and the details of which physical humans it associates with over time are inconsequential.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

timdaub pfp

Yeah, but I don't think it invalidates the idea. Instead, it creates possibilities for users. E.g. I had argued that if you feel like account-binding to an EOA isprevents preventing key rotation (a common critique of SBTs), you could instead bind to a smart contract wallet.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Tony D’Addeo pfp

SBT should be tied to a social ID (like fid) or biometric

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ pfp

Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ

On reflection: could this be a feature, not a bug? What if I have a wallet with an SBT to canonically identify it as the wallet for organization XYZ. There's a change in governance that necessitates a change in ownership - so we'd want the SBT to move with the change in ownership, yeah?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

jamesyoung.eth pfp

6551 defines NFTs owning other NFTs - standardizing the wrapping of tokens

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ pfp

Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ

Is it any less of a violation of SBTs if I give someone else my seed phrase or private key?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

one of the many matts pfp

one of the many matts

@1ofthemanymatts

yup. unimportant though. also SBTs are a shitty implementation of user-bound tokens (which is what most people want them for) because a user is not their address (a crazy idea, i know!)

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

abstractooor pfp

You could also just trade the private key of an EOA so SBTs were never a super airtight concept anyways - I think how to make SBTs less transferable would be to bind them to other unique tokens (such as a world id or proof of humanity)

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Nick Morgan 🎩 pfp

Nick Morgan 🎩

SBTs are still fundamentally just address bound. This way with a smart contract account and some account abstraction it keeps the souldbound token attached to the smart contract account, and someone can change ownership of the smart contract account for legitimate reasons while ensuring that the soulbound can't move

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

standpoint.degen.eth 🎩 pfp

standpoint.degen.eth 🎩

@standpoint.eth

Good point, but it looks very much like the egg and chicken problem. Let’s just park this one 😅

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction