Lock

Lock(resource lock) contracts enable sophisticated asset management beyond simple token transfers. While basic staking contracts offer time-delayed withdrawals, advanced resource lock systems introduce multiple stakeholder roles to enable programmable, cross-chain, and intent-based asset operations.

Core Implementation Differences

Aspect	TheCompact	FlashFunds
Asset Identification	ERC6909 tokens with packed ID structure	Simple mapping stakes[user][token]
Stakeholder Model	Multi-party (Sponsor, Allocator, Arbiter)	Single-party (Staker only)
User Interaction	Complex claim mechanisms + forced withdrawal	Direct staking functions + simple withdrawal
Withdrawal Authorization	Cryptographic proofs + allocator approval	Time delay + direct ownership
State Management	Complex resource lock lifecycle	Simple staking state machine

TheCompact's Multi-Party Architecture

Why Multiple Stakeholders?

• Sponsor: Owns the locked assets but cannot unilaterally withdraw them

• Allocator : Authorized to release locked assets only for specific purposes

• Arbiter : Validates and executes authorized claims against locked assets

This separation prevents users from arbitrarily disposing of their locked assets while enabling programmatic execution through authorized intermediaries. Unlike traditional approaches where users maintain direct control, TheCompact creates enforceable commitments where assets remain locked until specific conditions are cryptographically proven.

Account Abstraction & Chain Abstraction Integration

When implementing cross-chain intent settlement, TheCompact prevents source chain fund manipulation through cryptographic proofs and multi-party validation, ensuring that once a user submits a cross-chain intent, their assets remain locked until specific conditions are satisfied across multiple chains. FlashFunds relies on time-based locks that cannot adapt to dynamic cross-chain execution requirements, making it unsuitable for conditional release scenarios.

For account abstraction integration, TheCompact enables smart accounts to express complex cross-chain intents with guaranteed asset commitment, while FlashFunds supports only basic single-chain operations where simple time delays provide adequate security. The key difference lies in conditional versus temporal asset control: TheCompact locks assets until specific cross-chain conditions are met, while FlashFunds locks assets for predetermined time periods regardless of execution outcomes.