Hi, how about disallowing sending token to its own contract address?
Many new users lost their funds due to they transferred wrongly.
Just like this one:
I've seen projects using a different way of designing Ownable contracts by embedding a new owner into the ownerable contract at deployment. The benefit is project owners can claim ownership at their discretion and don't need to worry about the credit risk of devs.
EDIT #2: Looks like a #1238 was a valid PR accepted into an escrow-exploration branch that no longer exists. As such, I can't follow the thought process of why it's not a standard. Any thoughts here?
*EDIT #3:PaymentSplitter now does this, but Escrow does not.
Currently we have two - one for a marketplace and one for a Reflection style contract that accounts for various tokens.
We are transitioning to using our own ERC20, and there will be a large number of different contracts transferring said token as rewards (ideally into an Escrow). Preferably we can use a form of a SharedEscrow (likely using some form of AccessControl), so that there aren't some large number of Escrows floating around. This would essentially be a mix of the TokenEscrow linked to above with some DEPOSITER_ROLE.
The second functional requirement regards payouts from purchases on the marketplace, for which we would like to both use an Escrow but also payout in the native token.
Therefore, the dream would be something like A permissioned Escrow that can handle both >= 1 ERC20.