ethereum-magicians.orgthread

Standard for "transferable to arbitrary addresses" on tokenized RWAs? (locked v4 pools quoted in tokenized stocks)

An Ethereum Magicians forum thread dissects a novel rug/bricking vector emerging from a launchpad (sender.family) that locks 100% of token supply forever into a single one-sided Uniswap v4 position, where the quote asset can be a KYC-gated tokenized stock (Ondo's NVDA/TSLA/AAPL tokens) rather than ETH or a stablecoin. Because Uniswap v4 routes all pool balances through a shared PoolManager singleton and pays swap/fee output to arbitrary addresses, the RWA issuer must permanently allowlist the PoolManager and any counterparty; if the issuer later tightens its transfer-registry rules, the permanently locked pool becomes irrecoverable with funds stuck inside. The author notes the launchpad's current mitigation is only an empirical point-in-time transfer test (moving a balance between two addresses) against an asset with an admin-controlled, stateful ERC-3643 canTransfer function, and asks whether there's any way to verify "transferable to arbitrary addresses" onchain before pool creation, and whether permanent lockers should categorically refuse upgradeable/pausable quote assets.