Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
James McComish
@jamesmccomish.eth
Played around with session keys for the @base smart wallet over the weekend. Recommend checking out the docs in the smart-wallet-persmissions repo which does a good job at explaining each part of the setup. Seems to have a similar outcome to the modular accounts of 7579, and also have concepts like separate validation/execution stages that are compatible with 4337. Need to get a working 7579 example first to compare, but at first glance the new smart sessions from rhinestone/biconomy are a more complete solution - but the current smart-wallet-permissions is a v1 so is likely to change. https://github.com/jamesmccomish/session-testing https://github.com/coinbase/smart-wallet-permissions/tree/main/docs
3 replies
0 recast
13 reactions
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
Right now I have account abstraction working in plain 4337 style using Privy and Biconomy. Why should I care about smart wallets? It feels like there is a lot of movement across many different approaches. Do we as an industry at some point agree on one standard? And what should the builders use right now?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
James McComish
@jamesmccomish.eth
base smart wallet is 4337 too, but if you already have a biconomy version then there is little need to care about it. i think the broad standards for smart accounts are already agreed upon, and different companies are building their own functionality on top of that. with 7679 any dapp can get the signature data it needs to interact with any (4337) account, so the differences between biconomy and base smart accounts shouldn't be noticeable to you (if all dapps and wallets are correctly building to those standards, which might not be the case just yet)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
