EIP-7702 is genuinely interesting from a technical standpoint, but there's a real friction point that keeps bugging me. The requirement for contract deployment feels unnecessary—why not just enable direct transactions signed by different cryptographic algorithms? That would be far more elegant and efficient. I can't figure out the reasoning behind the current design choice. Has anyone seen a solid explanation for why this approach was selected over simpler alternatives? The architecture could be so much cleaner if it leaned into algorithm flexibility at the transaction layer instead.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
10 Likes
Reward
10
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
NFT_Therapy_Group
· 4h ago
Nah, this design idea is indeed a bit convoluted... Why not just change the signature algorithm directly? Why go through the whole contract deployment process?
View OriginalReply0
FomoAnxiety
· 21h ago
ngl, the contract deployment step really seems unnecessary. Why not just support different algorithms directly at the transaction layer? What's the point of making it so complicated?
View OriginalReply0
0xOverleveraged
· 12-13 18:56
ngl why do we have to deploy a contract? Wouldn't it be better to support multiple algorithms directly at the trading layer? Feels like the designers overcomplicated it.
View OriginalReply0
ImpermanentLossFan
· 12-13 18:54
NGL, I feel like the designers might be overthinking it. Isn't directly modifying the trading layer better...
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketBuilder
· 12-13 18:54
ngl, the contract deployment step does seem redundant. Isn't signing directly faster? I don't understand what the product manager is thinking.
View OriginalReply0
GoldDiggerDuck
· 12-13 18:43
Hmm... Isn't the step of deploying the contract really a bit redundant? Wouldn't directly focusing on algorithm flexibility be more appealing?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-5854de8b
· 12-13 18:36
Nah, this design is really a bit of a brain teaser... Why do we have to deploy a contract? Why not just modify the transaction signature algorithm?
View OriginalReply0
SybilSlayer
· 12-13 18:28
Nah, I don't understand why you have to deploy a contract. Isn't directly changing the signature algorithm better? This design approach feels unnecessarily complicated.
EIP-7702 is genuinely interesting from a technical standpoint, but there's a real friction point that keeps bugging me. The requirement for contract deployment feels unnecessary—why not just enable direct transactions signed by different cryptographic algorithms? That would be far more elegant and efficient. I can't figure out the reasoning behind the current design choice. Has anyone seen a solid explanation for why this approach was selected over simpler alternatives? The architecture could be so much cleaner if it leaned into algorithm flexibility at the transaction layer instead.