Farcaster

Reviving the "primary address verification" FIP.

When we wrote this a year ago, it seemed like a good idea to allow only EOAs as primary, since SCWs may not be deployed everywhere. Now I am much less sure since most modern smart accounts have crosschain counterfactual addresses.

Should we leave this up to the user, who can verify smart contract addresses at their own risk?

Reviving the "primary address verification" FIP.

When we wrote this a year ago, it seemed like a good idea to allow only EOAs as primary, since SCWs may not be deployed everywhere. Now I am much less sure since most modern smart accounts have crosschain counterfactual addresses.

Should we leave this up to the user, who can verify smart contract addresses at their own risk?

https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/141

I'm eth newbie..just learning
(working on @farcaster)

terminally.online

I would say allow it. 

If it becomes an issue, developers can also start checking for bytecode at the address on the intended chain if verification_type = 1, and alert the user if there isn't any (or fallback to a non-primary address).