LibraryData and agents2023Design paperCorpus record
Single-contract Multi-delegatecall
ERC 6357. Gavin John.
A desk note on ERC 6357 (Single-contract Multi-delegatecall). The file's status is Last Call. The note records the text. It does not measure who runs it.
Status on the file: Last Call. A reading of the public text, not a client release note.
ERC 6357, Single-contract Multi-delegatecall. Status written on the file: Last Call. The number is not a rule until you have read that file.
- Evidence
- Primary paper
- Re-measured
- No
- Assumptions
- 3
- Records linked
- 3
01 Claim ledger
What the paper is allowed to say
Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.
Claim 01 · Paper model
The defect
A client, a contract, or a wallet can cite ERC 6357 and still implement a different document.
Claim 02 · Paper model
The text
The file's own opening line says: This EIP standardizes an interface containing a single function, multicall , allowing EOAs to call multiple functions of a smart contract in a single transaction, and revert all calls if any call fails.
Claim 03 · Paper model
The label
The status written on the file is Last Call. A label is not a deployment.
Claim 04 · Paper model
The bound
This note does not add a parameter, a yield, a supply figure, or a legal conclusion.
02 Three cuts
Observation, model, falsifier
A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.
01 The defect
Observation
What the study says
A client, a contract, or a wallet can cite ERC 6357 and still implement a different document.
Model
What has to hold
The object named by the title is the object under discussion. A citation of the number in a later document is not this text.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the primary file still title itself Single-contract Multi-delegatecall?
02 The text
Observation
What the study says
The file's own opening line says: This EIP standardizes an interface containing a single function, multicall , allowing EOAs to call multiple functions of a smart contract in a single transaction, and revert all calls if any call fails.
Model
What has to hold
The object named by the title is the object under discussion. A citation of the number in a later document is not this text.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the primary file still title itself Single-contract Multi-delegatecall?
03 The label
Observation
What the study says
The status written on the file is Last Call. A label is not a deployment.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading ERC 6357 at the status the file states: Last Call.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Is the status on that file still Last Call, or has an editor moved it?
04 The bound
Observation
What the study says
This note does not add a parameter, a yield, a supply figure, or a legal conclusion.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the primary file still title itself Single-contract Multi-delegatecall?
03 Sequence
One action, as an operating tape
- 01Open ERC 6357 and read the title against the number.
- 02Treat the status as the editor's label on that date, then check whether the file has moved.
- 03If a pitch needs a figure, the figure has to be in the primary text. It is not supplied here.
04 Load-bearing
The argument, and where a pitch drops it
Number is not mechanism
The cut
ERC 6357 means the file titled Single-contract Multi-delegatecall, not every later post that cites the number.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
Quoting the number without the title is how two teams end up signing different rules.
Status is not shipping
The cut
Last Call tells you how the editors class the text. It does not tell you which client binary you are running.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.
Authors are on the file
The cut
The preamble names Gavin John. A marketing page with the same title is not this authorship.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
Quoting the number without the title is how two teams end up signing different rules.
05 Register
What has to be true
Model · Not re-measured
You are reading ERC 6357 at the status the file states: Last Call.
Model · Not re-measured
The object named by the title is the object under discussion. A citation of the number in a later document is not this text.
Model · Not re-measured
No parameter in this note was added by Blockchain Lab.
06 Divergence
What happened after the paper
Later files can finalise, stagnate, or replace this number. Cite the file you opened, including its status, not a memory of the number.
A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.
07 Pre-mortem
What to check before you use the idea
- 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.
08 Anatomy
The paper, in the order a builder needs
The problem it names
A client, a contract, or a wallet can cite ERC 6357 and still implement a different document. The defect is a shared number with an unread title.
What the design proposes
- The file's own opening line says: This EIP standardizes an interface containing a single function, multicall , allowing EOAs to call multiple functions of a smart contract in a single transaction, and revert all calls if any call fails.
- The status written on the file is Last Call. That is an editorial label, not a client version and not a market fact.
- The authors named on the file are Gavin John. A later erratum is still this number. A different mechanism needs a different number.
How the mechanism is specified
- What the title puts in scope is Single-contract Multi-delegatecall. Neighbour documents that mention ERC 6357 are not this text.
- The file dates the text to 2023. That is the preamble date, not the date any network enforced the change.
- Adoption, fees, and a client's binary are outside the file. They are not implied by a Final, Draft, Review, or Stagnant label.
What this page does not treat as proven
- Status Last Call is not evidence that any node you run has shipped the change.
- This note does not add a parameter, a yield, a supply figure, or a legal conclusion.
- Quoting the number without the title is how two teams end up signing different rules.
Why the desk still reads it
ERC 6357, Single-contract Multi-delegatecall. Status written on the file: Last Call. The number is not a rule until you have read that file.
09 Lexicon
Terms, opened into the record
- ERC 6357
- The public text titled Single-contract Multi-delegatecall.
- Last Call
- The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.
10 Repository
Every linked record on this page
Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.
Concepts
This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.
Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.