[FDSGSG]

>You feel all client software will be suitable?

Of course not. There will be more advanced software for expert users that allows them to manually create potentially riskier transactions. That's perfectly fine.

Client software targeting end-users should have such checks.

[ddingus]

But it just won't. You read it here first.

[FDSGSG]

This really doesn't line up with the reality of how most people are congregating around user friendly wallet software and steering away from the more advanced options.

You only one need one wallet software to be the official WETH-approved client, sucks for anyone else risking their money with unsupported software.

[ddingus]

I am quite happy to be proven wrong.

We shall see. And for me, safely and at a distance.

Frankly, the small cost of robustness in contracts should have been factored in from the beginning. It just does not need to be so damn lean and rickety.

The incentives are wrong here.

My prediction is the current state of affairs all gets ripped up and replaced after a time. And until that happens, we are likely to see activity largely limited to people who have a healthy appetite for risk.

Perhaps it all is as it should be too. Had the reverse been done, emphasis on slightly more expensive contracts that are robust and able to deny the costly errors, I would imagine others clamoring for people to adopt the rock bottom lean stacks...

What it won't all be is dull, will it?

[FDSGSG]

There's a ton of money in providing good wallet software. Many people are making a killing by offering good UX, as offering good wallet software puts them in a prime position to offer profit-generating value added services like currency swaps.

>Frankly, the small cost of robustness in contracts should have been factored in from the beginning. It just does not need to be so damn lean and rickety.

It really doesn't seem necessary, more complicated contracts require custom frontends to interact with anyway.