Joshua Hannan

> Will this not break _a lot of code_. It will break a lot of code in theory. We're figuring out a proposal first that we can all agree would...

Yeah, it doesn't really matter if it has NFTs or not.

I don't know if this makes sense. It encourages `msg.sender` access control list patterns that we have explicitly tried to avoid in Cadence.

Maybe a FLIP would be good. Though I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a feature like this on the chance that it could be useful, but I worry that...

> another idea we recently discussed was the sender to pay for storage fees. And making this contract both for NFT and FT. Can you elaborate? Do you mean that...

@bluesign Why don't you think you can enforce that with Cadence? You could just use a function like this: `pub fun depositNewVaultWithStorageFees(from: @FungibleToken.Vault, fees: @FlowToken.Vault)` The resource could store it...

> How to calculate the fee ? We can do naive storageUsed before and storageUsed after calculation, but it is totally avoidable. Then I can fill up your storage to...

> I can even deploy contract, create some Fungible, send to your switchboard, then delete contract. Then your switchboard probably dies. Would that break the entire switchboard? Seems like that...

The only test I have written so far is a deployment test, which is currently failing because it says the `ExampleToken.Vault` does not implement `FungibleToken.Vault` correctly, which I am confused...

oh yeah, good catch! The test still fails with the same error though. 😅