Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
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
Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ
@jrh3k5.eth
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
Spencer Graham 🧢
@spengrah.eth
yes, because giving somebody your private keys is not a credible transfer of ownership, since you still have the keys
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ
@jrh3k5.eth
That's a fair distinction, though, functionally, if I give someone my seed phrase, my Swiss cheese memory is not going to be able to recall it. That's effectively a permanent transfer.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
Yes but the receiver can never trust that you have truly forgotten/deleted your seed phrase so practically it isn't worth considering as a fault case.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Joshua Hyde (he/him) ツ
@jrh3k5.eth
I didn't communicate my point well - I'm not saying, "therefore SBTs are useless", but that there's no real added risk with wallet transfers. If anything, wallet transfers just make the change in ownership more publicly visible.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
yeah. FWIW, I think it‘s the same reason why Harberger taxes haven‘t really worked well.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
