About · ERCs, Solved

ERCs, Solved is a reference for the standards LUKSO designed instead of layered. It is written for the EVM developer who already knows what is broken on Ethereum and wants the decision support to move — verdict-first, not marketing-first.

The stance, in one paragraph.

ERCs are interfaces. LSPs are the system. ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155 won by underspecifying — they handed everyone a balance sheet and a transfer function and went home. Every team since has paid the integration tax: approval phishing, dead NFTs in vaults, tokenURI servers that go offline, EOAs nobody can recover, ERC-4337 stacks bolted on to fake what an account should be. LSPs aren't a competing token spec — they're the surrounding system: receiver awareness, profile metadata, key-scoped permissions, relay execution, contract extension. This site exists to make that decision legible.

Editorial rules.

01 One claim per page. The verdict goes above the fold.
02 No exclamation points. No "powerful." No "next-generation." If a standard needs a marketing word it isn't ready.
03 Every standard explainer includes a what it does not solve section. Anti-overselling is a feature.
04 Every page lists the author, the last-updated date, and an edit-on-github link.
05 We link to docs.lukso.tech for the canonical spec. We do not duplicate the spec — we make the decision around it.

How content is organized.

Two entry models converge on the same library: enter by the ERC you use today through hub Problems , or enter by what you're building through hub Build . Both route to hub Standards explainers and side-by-side LSP·7 comparisons . The single most-linkable page is the LSP·* ERC ↔ LSP matrix .

Independence.

This is an independent reference. It is unaffiliated with the LUKSO foundation. We don't publish anything we wouldn't ship in production ourselves, and we link to the official docs from every page so the spec stays canonical there.

Contribute.

Found a bug, a sharper verdict, a missing pattern? Every page has an edit on github link. Open a PR — issues are also fine. The content collection schemas are typed; reviewers will catch shape errors before merge.