What problem does this solve?
Clawmes uses MetaMask’s EIP7702StatelessDeleGator in its EIP-7702 upgrade flow. When delegate implementations, versions, or supported chains change, maintainers may need to verify that the documented deployment matches the actual onchain runtime code.
I independently checked the implementation used by Clawmes on Ethereum and Base. The address, version, and chain-specific runtime fingerprints match the documented and previously observed deployments. I found no Clawmes bug or security issue.
I’m interested in whether an independent, reproducible verification report would be useful during deployment or chain-support reviews, or whether your existing checks already cover this.
Proposed solution
I’m building DelegateScope, a tool for checking EIP-7702 delegate implementations against documented deployments and onchain runtime code.
I can share a free, one-off report for the MetaMask implementation used by Clawmes on Ethereum and Base. It includes block-specific code hashes, version observations, public sources, and reproduction steps. It also explains why the runtime hashes differ between the two chains.
This would be an optional review aid, not a required change to Clawmes. No installation, wallet access, keys, or repository permissions are needed.
Would this kind of report add value to your existing review process?
Alternatives considered
No response
Scope estimate
None
What problem does this solve?
Clawmes uses MetaMask’s EIP7702StatelessDeleGator in its EIP-7702 upgrade flow. When delegate implementations, versions, or supported chains change, maintainers may need to verify that the documented deployment matches the actual onchain runtime code.
I independently checked the implementation used by Clawmes on Ethereum and Base. The address, version, and chain-specific runtime fingerprints match the documented and previously observed deployments. I found no Clawmes bug or security issue.
I’m interested in whether an independent, reproducible verification report would be useful during deployment or chain-support reviews, or whether your existing checks already cover this.
Proposed solution
I’m building DelegateScope, a tool for checking EIP-7702 delegate implementations against documented deployments and onchain runtime code.
I can share a free, one-off report for the MetaMask implementation used by Clawmes on Ethereum and Base. It includes block-specific code hashes, version observations, public sources, and reproduction steps. It also explains why the runtime hashes differ between the two chains.
This would be an optional review aid, not a required change to Clawmes. No installation, wallet access, keys, or repository permissions are needed.
Would this kind of report add value to your existing review process?
Alternatives considered
No response
Scope estimate
None