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

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

I think so!

From dev perspective we had this in mind when we considered SCWs for super wallet implementation

And a user who defaults to using SCW, like coinbase smart wallet, can be classified as a power user who is aware of risks related to using a wallet that doesnt have the full chain support