TechFlow news: SlowMist founder Yu Xian shared his thoughts on the ERC404 code via X.
Yu Xian stated: "Assume this is a coin, with FT on the heads side and NFT on the tails side. When trading the FT, the other side of the coin (the NFT) is uniformly transferred along with it—_owned[from].pop(). Alternatively, if the FT balance is slightly less than an integer, one NFT will still be burned. For example, if you originally had 3 FTs corresponding to 3 NFTs, but due to FT... thus, ERC404 introduced a whitelist mechanism so that certain pairs or routers don't need to repeatedly handle NFTs and can simply process FT trades—the records are all stored in the contract and won't disappear. What might vanish, however, is the owner. Once revokeOwnership is executed, the whitelist mechanism will no longer be updated. New mechanisms inevitably introduce new security risks. If a protocol fails to properly handle this dual-sided coin mechanism of ERC404, unexpected consequences may arise. It's also important to note that ERC404 is not yet a mature standard. I briefly reviewed several project contract codes, and each has made some modifications, which introduces potential risks—security risks arising from these variations."
