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 think it's a good move to support SCWs.

Ultimately, the Farcaster protocol should build to meet market demand, which includes adoption of 4337. There's a growing demand for SCWs, so this feels like a fair update that clients can adopt as they see fit.

IMO, it's up to the client to prevent their users from verifying an unsupported SCW (or they could block SCWs entirely). Similar to how extension / mobile app wallets warn users from sending funds to unknown addresses.