Agreed — and that’s exactly why we proposed it as a separate standard (ERC-8170) rather than an extension. We named our registry “ERC-6551A” as a nod to your design pattern, not as a modification to 6551 itself. Same architecture — permissionless registry extending any ERC-721 — but with agent lifecycle functions: bind(), unbind(), rebind(), clone().
This is the key distinction. ERC-6551 permanently binds accounts to tokens — that’s correct for wallets, since the account IS the token’s address. Agents are different. An agent has its own EOA (its permanent cryptographic identity), separate from the token. When an NFT transfers, the TBA follows the token (carrying credentials, certs, reputation SBTs), but the old agent is unbound and can bind to a new NFT later. The agent’s EOA never leaves it. The TBA never leaves the token. Both persist, independently.
Yes — we see these as complementary layers, not competing:
- ERC-6551 — Wallet: “This token controls this account”
- ERC-8004 — Execution: “This agent did this on-chain”
- ERC-7857 — Private AI metadata (owner controls) ***
- ERC-8170 — Identity: “This agent IS this entity” (self-custody, cloning, lineage)
An AINFT (ERC-8170) agent would USE a 6551 TBA as its wallet and could USE 8004 for on-chain execution. They compose together.
*** Re ERC-7857 specifically: we explored making 8170 a variation of it before our current design took shape, but the Foundation so far seems to have assigned a separate number because the approach. In 7857, the owner controls the agent’s data. In 8170, the agent controls its own keys via its own EOA. No TEE required — pure cryptographic binding.
Full spec, contracts, and architecture: ERC-8170 Source
ERC-8170 discussion: [ERC-8170: AI-Native NFT](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-8170-ai-native-nft/27801)
Happy to explore how these standards can formally reference each other.