Function-level access, as pioneered by ERC-4337 bundlers and refined by Safe{Wallet}, excels at minimizing user risk by granting permissions to specific, pre-defined smart contract functions. For example, a session for a DEX might only allow swapExactTokensForTokens on a specific pool, preventing asset draining. This granularity is critical for high-value DeFi protocols like Aave or Compound, where TVL in the billions demands the principle of least privilege.
LABS
Comparisons
Session Granularity: Function-Level vs. Contract-Level Access
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating session key models for smart contract wallets. Covers security trade-offs, user experience, and optimal use cases for DeFi and gaming.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Granularity Dilemma in Smart Wallet Sessions
The choice between function-level and contract-level session keys defines the security and user experience of your dApp.
Contract-level access, a model used by Argent and Ambire, takes a different approach by granting a session key broad authority over an entire smart contract interface. This results in a superior user experience for complex, multi-step interactions—like a single session for managing an entire NFT mint, stake, and bridge operation—but trades off a larger attack surface. A malicious dApp with contract-level access could call any function on the permitted contract.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security for high-value assets or compliance-sensitive operations, choose function-level sessions. If you prioritize seamless UX for gaming, social, or complex multi-action dApps, contract-level access reduces friction. The decision hinges on whether you optimize for trust minimization or interaction fluidity.
tldr-summary
Session Granularity: Function-Level vs. Contract-Level Access
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for smart contract wallet security and UX.
01
Function-Level (ERC-6900) Pros
Precise Permission Scoping: Users can grant access to specific functions (e.g., swap() on Uniswap) without exposing the entire contract. This is critical for DeFi composability, allowing secure interactions with protocols like Aave or Compound for single actions.
02
Function-Level (ERC-6900) Cons
Increased Implementation Complexity: Developers must manage and validate granular permissions, increasing smart contract gas overhead and audit surface. This can lead to higher initial development costs and requires sophisticated tooling (e.g., custom policy engines).
03
Contract-Level (Traditional) Pros
Simplicity & Predictability: Grants all-or-nothing access to a smart contract. This reduces development complexity, gas costs for session setup, and is easier to audit. Ideal for trusted, long-lived sessions with known contracts like NFT marketplaces (Blur).
04
Contract-Level (Traditional) Cons
Over-Privileged Sessions: A session key with full contract access is a major risk if the connected dApp is compromised. This model is poor for wallet-as-a-service or embedded wallets where user assets are pooled, as a single breach exposes all functions.
SESSION GRANULARITY: FUNCTION-LEVEL VS. CONTRACT-LEVEL
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key architectural and security metrics for session key implementations.
| Metric | Function-Level Access | Contract-Level Access |
|---|---|---|
Access Granularity | Individual smart contract functions | Entire smart contract |
Security Risk Surface | Limited to pre-approved function(s) | All functions in the contract |
Typical Use Case | Single, repeatable user action (e.g., swap) | Multi-step interactions (e.g., gaming session) |
Developer Complexity | Higher (requires function whitelisting) | Lower (grants blanket approval) |
Revocation Overhead | Per-function revocation | Single contract revocation |
Protocol Examples | ERC-4337 Session Keys, Rhinestone | Traditional dApp Wallet Connect |
pros-cons-a
Session Granularity: Function-Level vs. Contract-Level Access
Function-Level Access: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for wallet permissions, impacting security, user experience, and developer flexibility.
01
Function-Level Access: Pros
Precision Security: Limits wallet permissions to specific functions (e.g., swap() but not transfer()), drastically reducing attack surface. This matters for DeFi composability where users interact with untrusted dApps like Uniswap or Aave.
- Example: A session can allow only
deposit()on a lending pool, preventing asset theft. - User Experience: Enables "set-and-forget" sessions for repeated actions, improving UX for gaming or trading bots.
02
Function-Level Access: Cons
Implementation Complexity: Requires deeper integration with wallet providers (e.g., MetaMask Snaps, Rabby) and smart account standards (ERC-4337). This matters for protocol teams with limited dev resources.
- Gas Overhead: Each session setup and validation adds ~20k-50k extra gas per transaction vs. a simple contract approval.
- Fragmentation: Lack of universal standard (competing implementations like ERC-7579 vs. vendor-specific solutions) can hinder adoption.
03
Contract-Level Access: Pros
Simplicity & Universality: The classic approve() model is understood by all wallets (MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet), contracts, and indexers. This matters for rapid prototyping and broad user base support.
- Lower Gas for Single Actions: A one-time approval for a full contract is gas-efficient for high-value, infrequent transactions (e.g., NFT marketplace bulk listing).
- Established Tooling: Full support in SDKs (Ethers.js, Viem), block explorers (Etherscan), and security tools.
04
Contract-Level Access: Cons
All-or-Nothing Risk: Granting approval to a contract's transferFrom() function exposes all tokens of that type to potential exploits. This matters for security-conscious institutions and was a vector in historic hacks.
- Poor UX for Repeated Use: Users must sign a new transaction for every action, creating friction for dApps requiring multiple steps.
- Blind Trust: Users cannot audit which specific functions will be called, reducing transparency in complex interactions with aggregators like 1inch.
pros-cons-b
Session Granularity: Function-Level vs. Contract-Level Access
Contract-Level Access: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for smart contract wallet authorization models at a glance.
01
Function-Level Access (ERC-4337, Safe{Wallet})
Precise Permissioning: Users can authorize a single function call (e.g., swap() on Uniswap) without granting full contract control. This minimizes attack surface and is critical for high-value DeFi interactions where trust is limited.
02
Contract-Level Access (Traditional EOAs, Some MPC Wallets)
Simplicity & Compatibility: Grants full control of the contract to the session key. This ensures 100% compatibility with existing dApps and smart contracts, avoiding the need for custom integrations. Ideal for rapid prototyping and internal tooling.
03
Function-Level Access Limitation
Integration Complexity: dApps must explicitly support session keys or user operations (UserOps). This can fragment the user experience and is a barrier for mainstream adoption until standards like ERC-7677 for RPC-wide session keys mature.
04
Contract-Level Access Risk
Catastrophic Exposure: A compromised session key has unlimited access to all funds and functions within the contract. This is a non-starter for institutional custody or any use case requiring strict internal controls and audit trails.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which Model
Function-Level Access for DeFi
Verdict: The Standard for Security-Critical Applications.
Strengths: Granular control is non-negotiable for DeFi. It enables the principle of least privilege, where a dApp can request access only to a specific transferFrom function, not the entire token contract. This mitigates the risk of malicious contracts draining wallets via unexpected callbacks or hidden functions. Protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound rely on this model to protect user funds. It's battle-tested and expected by sophisticated DeFi users.
Contract-Level Access for DeFi
Verdict: Risky and Generally Discouraged. Granting blanket approval to an entire contract is a major security anti-pattern. While it simplifies UX by reducing transaction prompts, it exposes users to unlimited drain risk if the approved contract is compromised. This model is a legacy approach that modern DeFi security audits (e.g., by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin) explicitly warn against. Its use is limited to highly trusted, non-custodial wallets or internal system contracts where the risk profile is fully controlled.
SESSION GRANULARITY
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation & Standards
The granularity of access control—function-level vs. contract-level—fundamentally shapes developer experience, security posture, and composability. This section breaks down the key differences and trade-offs.
Function-level access control grants permissions to specific smart contract functions, while contract-level access grants blanket access to the entire contract. This is a core architectural decision for session keys. For example, in a DeFi vault, a function-level session could allow only deposit() and withdraw() on a specific vault contract, while a contract-level session would grant access to all functions, including changeAdmin(). This directly impacts the principle of least privilege and potential attack surface.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between function-level and contract-level session keys is a strategic decision that balances security granularity against developer and user experience.
Function-level session granularity, as pioneered by ERC-6900 and implemented by protocols like Rhinestone, excels at minimizing attack surfaces and enabling precise delegation. For example, a user can grant a gaming dApp permission to call only the mint function on an NFT contract, not the transfer function, drastically reducing the risk of asset theft if the session is compromised. This model is ideal for high-value, permission-sensitive interactions common in DeFi (e.g., Compound, Aave) and asset management.
Contract-level session access, used by frameworks like Candide's WalletConnect Sessions and many existing EIP-3074 implementations, takes a different approach by granting blanket access to all functions within a smart contract. This results in a trade-off of broader permissions for significantly improved developer ergonomics and user simplicity. It eliminates the complexity of managing fine-grained function whitelists, making it better suited for high-frequency, low-risk interactions like social dApps, gaming sessions, or batched transactions where the primary risk is spam, not fund drainage.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security and principle of least privilege for financial applications, choose function-level granularity. If you prioritize rapid developer adoption, seamless UX, and transaction batching for consumer dApps, choose contract-level access. The ecosystem is evolving, with hybrid models emerging, but this core dichotomy defines the current strategic landscape for protocol architects.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall