Consider using Token Types

[PaulRBerg]

Type safety for ERC-20 and ERC-721 interactions:

https://github.com/jtriley-eth/token-types

CC @sablier-labs/solidity.

[PaulRBerg]

did you have a look at this, @sablier-labs/solidity?

[andreivladbrg]

Actually not, I think I've missed this discussion, will do, but a low priority atm

[smol-ninja]

Not yet, but will do a review soon.

[PaulRBerg]

cheers guys

[smol-ninja]

Good stuffs

• The implementations in token-types contracts are memory safe, so using them give us a slight gas advantage over OZ but its only ~1% (tx1 vs tx2)
• In case of ERC20, the implementation of transfer and transferFrom are similar to safeTransfer and safeTransferFrom from SafeERC20, so we won't need the SafeERC20 library anymore.

Bad stuffs

• In token-types ERC20, there is no implementation akin to forceApprove so thats something we will have to handle or use SafeERC20 alongside it.
• But SafeERC20 library cannot be used out of the box because SafeERC20 takes IERC20 as the first input. So, in order to use it, we will have to pass IERC20(address(token)) as the first parameter of forceApprove.
• Only 1 release so far with no new PR or issue.

Note

• To differentiate it from OZ's ERC20, this should be imported as IERC20 or some other alias.
• Minimum 0.8.25 is required which is fine by us.

My take

• I don't see much advantage in using Token Type over traditional interfaces.

[PaulRBerg]

Thanks for taking a look and for the clear breakdown.

Only 1 release so far with no new PR or issue.

Strong argument against using it.

The security risks are not worth it.