SNIP-72: Non-fungible Tokenbound Accounts

Simple Summary

An interface and registry for smart contract accounts owned by non-fungible tokens


This proposal defines a system that assigns Starknet accounts to all non-fungible tokens (ERC-721). These tokenbound accounts allow NFTs to own assets and interact with applications, without requiring changes to existing smart contracts or infrastructure.


The ERC-721 standard enabled an explosion of non-fungible token applications. Some notable use cases have included breedable cats, generative artwork, and exchange liquidity positions.

However, NFTs cannot act as agents or associate with other on-chain assets. This limitation makes it difficult to represent many real-world non-fungible assets as NFTs.

For example:

  • A character in a role-playing game that accumulates assets and abilities over time based on actions they have taken.

  • An automobile composed of many fungible and non-fungible components.

  • An investment portfolio composed of multiple fungible assets.

This proposal aims to utilize the power of native account abstraction, to give every NFT the same rights as a Starknet user. This includes the ability to self-custody assets, execute arbitrary operations, and control multiple independent accounts. By doing so, this proposal allows complex real-world assets to be represented as NFTs using a common pattern that mirrors Starknet’s existing ownership model.

This is accomplished by defining a singleton registry that assigns unique, deterministic smart contract account addresses to all existing and future NFTs. Each account is permanently bound to a single NFT, with control of the account granted to the holder of that NFT.

The pattern defined in this proposal does not require any changes to existing NFT smart contracts. It is also compatible out of the box with nearly all existing infrastructure that supports Starknet accounts, from on-chain protocols to off-chain indexers. Tokenbound accounts are compatible with every existing on-chain asset standard, and can be extended to support new asset standards created in the future.

By giving every NFT the full capabilities of a Starknet account, this proposal enables many novel use cases for existing and future NFTs.


The system outlined in this proposal has two main components:

  • A singleton registry for tokenbound accounts

  • A common interface for tokenbound account implementations

The following diagram illustrates the relationship between NFTs, NFT holders, tokenbound accounts, and the Registry.


The registry is a singleton contract that serves as the entry point for all tokenbound account address queries. It has three functions:

  • create_account - creates the tokenbound account for an NFT given an implementation address

  • get_account - computes the tokenbound account address for an NFT given an implementation address

  • total_deployed_accounts - returns the number of deployed tokenbound accounts for an NFT

The registry is permissionless, immutable, and has no owner. The complete source code for the registry can be found in the Registry Implementation section.

The Registry Interface

trait IRegistry<TContractState> {
    /// @notice Emitted when a new tokenbound account is deployed/created
    /// @param account_address the deployed contract address of the tokenbound acccount
    /// @param token_contract the contract address of the NFT
    /// @param token_id the ID of the NFT
    #[derive(Drop, starknet::Event)]
    struct AccountCreated {
        account_address: ContractAddress,
        token_contract: ContractAddress,
        token_id: u256,

    /// @notice deploys a new tokenbound account for an NFT
    /// @param implementation_hash the class hash of the reference account
    /// @param token_contract the contract address of the NFT
    /// @param token_id the ID of the NFT
    /// @param salt random salt for deployment
    fn create_account(ref self: TContractState, implementation_hash: felt252, token_contract: ContractAddress, token_id: u256, salt: felt252) -> ContractAddress;

    /// @notice calculates the account address for an existing tokenbound account
    /// @param implementation_hash the class hash of the reference account
    /// @param token_contract the contract address of the NFT
    /// @param token_id the ID of the NFT
    /// @param salt random salt for deployment
    fn get_account(self: @TContractState, implementation_hash: felt252, token_contract: ContractAddress, token_id: u256, salt: felt252) -> ContractAddress;

    /// @notice returns the total no. of deployed tokenbound accounts for an NFT by the registry
    /// @param token_contract the contract address of the NFT 
    /// @param token_id the ID of the NFT
    fn total_deployed_accounts(self: @TContractState, token_contract: ContractAddress, token_id: u256) -> u8;

Account Implementation

The account implementation is an opinionated, flexible, and audited token bound account implementation.

All token bound accounts SHOULD be created via the singleton registry.

Implementation Account Interface

All token bound account implementations MUST implement the following interface:

trait IAccount<TContractState>{
    /// @notice Emitted exactly once when the account is initialized
    /// @param owner The owner address
    #[derive(Drop, starknet::Event)]
    struct AccountCreated {
        owner: ContractAddress,

    /// @notice Emitted when the account executes a transaction
    /// @param hash The transaction hash
    /// @param response The data returned by the methods called
    #[derive(Drop, starknet::Event)]
    struct TransactionExecuted {
        hash: felt252,
        response: Span<Span<felt252>>

    /// @notice Emitted when the account upgrades to a new implementation
    /// @param tokenContract the contract address of the NFT 
    /// @param tokenId the token ID of the NFT
    /// @param implementation the upgraded account class hash
    #[derive(Drop, starknet::Event)]
    struct Upgraded {
        tokenContract: ContractAddress, 
        tokenId: u256, 
        implementation: ClassHash

    /// @notice used for signature validation
    /// @param hash The message hash 
    /// @param signature The signature to be validated
    fn is_valid_signature(self: @TContractState, hash:felt252, signature: Span<felt252>) -> felt252;

    /// @notice used for validating signer
    /// @param signer The signer to be validated
    fn is_valid_signer(self: @TContractState, signer: ContractAddress) -> felt252;

    /// @notice validate an account transaction
    /// @param calls an array of transactions to be executed
    fn __validate__(ref self: TContractState, calls:Array<Call>) -> felt252;

    fn __validate_declare__(self:@TContractState, class_hash:felt252) -> felt252;

    fn __validate_deploy__(self: @TContractState, class_hash:felt252, contract_address_salt:felt252) -> felt252;

    /// @notice executes a transaction
    /// @param calls an array of transactions to be executed
    fn __execute__(ref self: TContractState, calls:Array<Call>) -> Array<Span<felt252>>;

    /// @notice returns the contract address and token ID of the NFT
    fn token(self:@TContractState) -> (ContractAddress, u256);

    /// @notice gets the tokenbound NFT owner
    /// @param token_contract the contract address of the NFT
    /// @param token_id the token ID of the NFT
    fn owner(self: @TContractState, token_contract:ContractAddress, token_id:u256) -> ContractAddress;

    // @notice protection mechanism for selling token bound accounts. can't execute when account is locked
    // @param duration for which to lock account
    fn lock(ref self: TContractState, duration: u64);
    // @notice returns account lock status and time left until account unlocks
    fn is_locked(self: @TContractState) -> (bool, u64);

    // @notice check that account supports TBA interface
    // @param interface_id interface to be checked against
    fn supports_interface(self: @TContractState, interface_id: felt252) -> bool;


Singleton Registry

This proposal specifies a single, canonical registry. It purposefully does not specify a common interface that can be implemented by multiple registry contracts. This approach enables several critical properties.

Counterfactual Accounts

All tokenbound accounts exist in a counterfactual state prior to their creation. Thus tokenbound accounts can receive assets prior to contract creation. A singleton account registry ensures a common addressing scheme is used for all tokenbound account addresses deployed using the deploy_syscall.

Trustless Deployments

A single ownerless registry ensures that the only trusted contract for any tokenbound account is the implementation. This guarantees the holder of a token access to all assets stored within a counterfactual account using a trusted implementation.

Without a canonical registry, some tokenbound accounts may be deployed using an owned or upgradable registry. This may lead to loss of assets stored in counterfactual accounts and increases the scope of the security model that applications supporting this proposal must consider.

Single Entry Point

A single entry point for querying account addresses and AccountCreated events simplifies the complex task of indexing tokenbound accounts in applications that support this proposal.

Implementation Diversity

A singleton registry allows diverse account implementations to share a common addressing scheme. This gives developers significant freedom to implement innovative features in a way that can be easily supported by client applications.

Registry vs Factory

The term “registry” was chosen instead of “factory” to highlight the canonical nature of the contract and emphasize the act of querying account addresses (which occurs regularly) over the creation of accounts (which occurs only once per account).

Account Ambiguity

The specification proposed above allows NFTs to have multiple tokenbound accounts. During the development of this proposal, alternative architectures were considered which would have assigned a single tokenbound account to each NFT, making each tokenbound account address an unambiguous identifier.

However, these alternatives present several trade-offs.

First, due to the permissionless nature of smart contracts, it is impossible to enforce a limit of one tokenbound account per NFT. Anyone wishing to utilize multiple tokenbound accounts per NFT could do so by deploying an additional registry contract.

Second, limiting each NFT to a single tokenbound account would require a static, trusted account implementation to be included in this proposal. This implementation would inevitably impose specific constraints on the capabilities of tokenbound accounts. Given the number of unexplored use cases this proposal enables and the benefit that diverse account implementations could bring to the non-fungible token ecosystem, it is the authors’ opinion that defining a canonical and constrained implementation in this proposal is premature.

Finally, this proposal seeks to grant NFTs the ability to act as agents on-chain. In current practice, on-chain agents often utilize multiple accounts. A common example is individuals who use a “hot” account for daily use and a “cold” account for storing valuables. If on-chain agents commonly use multiple accounts, it stands to reason that NFTs ought to inherit the same ability.

Backwards Compatibility

This proposal seeks to be maximally backward compatible with existing non-fungible token contracts. As such, it does not extend the ERC-721 standard.

Additionally, this proposal does not require the registry to perform an ERC-165 interface check for ERC-721 compatibility prior to account creation. This maximizes compatibility with non-fungible token contracts that pre-date the ERC-721 standard (such as CryptoKitties). It also allows the system described in this proposal to be used with semi-fungible or fungible tokens, although these use cases are outside the scope of the proposal.

Smart contract authors may optionally choose to enforce interface detection for ERC-721 in their account implementations.

Reference Implementation

Registry Implementation

Reference Account Implementation

Security Considerations

Fraud Prevention

In order to enable trustless sales of token bound accounts, decentralized marketplaces will need to implement safeguards against fraudulent behavior by malicious account owners.

Consider the following potential scam:

  • Alice owns an ERC-721 token X, which owns token bound account Y

  • Alice deposits 10ETH into account Y

  • Bob offers to purchase token X for 11ETH via a decentralized marketplace, assuming he will receive the 10ETH stored in account Y along with the token

  • Alice withdraws 10ETH from the token bound account, and immediately accepts Bob’s offer

  • Bob receives token X, but account Y is empty

To mitigate this sort of fraudulent behavior by malicious account owners, we’ve added two methods: lock and is_locked which decentralized marketplaces SHOULD implement for protection against these sorts of scams at the marketplace level.

Ownership Cycles

All assets held in a tokenbound account may be rendered inaccessible if an ownership cycle is created. The simplest example is the case of an ERC-721 token being transferred to its own tokenbound account. If this occurs, both the ERC-721 token and all of the assets stored in the token bound account would be permanently inaccessible, since the tokenbound account is incapable of executing a transaction that transfers the ERC-721 token.

Ownership cycles can be introduced in any graph of n>0 tokenbound accounts. On-chain prevention of cycles with depth>1 is difficult to enforce given the infinite search space required, and as such is outside the scope of this proposal. Application clients and account implementations wishing to adopt this proposal are encouraged to implement measures that limit the possibility of ownership cycles.