Introduce BasicPredicateClient #47
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Added BasicPredicateClient for WHO-based authorization only - Added BasicVault example in inheritance folder (simplified authorization) - Added AdvancedVault example in inheritance folder (uses existing PredicateClient) - Updated README with decision guide: 'Do I need different rules based on WHAT users are doing, or just WHO?' - Removed duplicate AdvancedPredicateClient (use existing PredicateClient instead) - All examples now in src/examples/inheritance/ folder
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
penDerGraft
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2026
penDerGraft
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2026
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
Most teams using Predicate only need simple WHO-based access control (KYC, allowlists, time restrictions), but today they're forced to encode function signatures and handle parameters they don't actually use.
Solution
Split into two implementations:
Decision guide: "Do I need different rules based on WHAT users are doing, or just WHO is doing it?"
Sucessfull E2E V2 flow can be proven with this transaction
Note: to simplify the entire flow, we will need to modify the attestation API to ignore the data and msg_value fields