Wallets & standardsSourced answer

Is BRC-100 real interoperability or one vendor's interface?

“A published document and one implementation are not interoperability. Show independent wallets, shared vectors, and compatibility results.”

The answer without the theater.

BRC-100 specifies wallet actions, signatures, encryption, certificates, permissions, baskets, and discovery. The current TypeScript monorepo includes wallet tooling and a growing language-neutral conformance corpus. That is more than a private API, but it does not settle vendor neutrality. Credible interoperability requires independent implementations, published coverage, negative tests, version handling, and a compatibility matrix.

The objection's strongest ground

  • BRC-100 is publicly readable and defined as a unified vendor-neutral wallet-to-application interface.
  • The TypeScript stack publishes language-neutral conformance vectors and runners with an explicit coverage surface.
  • A single successful application-wallet pairing does not prove cross-vendor compatibility.

Do not claim more than the evidence

  • The presence of a conformance directory does not mean every BRC-100 method, edge case, and language is covered.
  • Wallet API interoperability does not remove rail, governance, liquidity, or license dependencies.

A better next move than arguing

  1. Read the current conformance coverage and parity matrices before making an interoperability claim.
  2. Run the same positive and negative request vectors against at least two independently maintained wallets.
  3. Publish version, unsupported behavior, permission differences, failures, and data-export results.

What would change this answer?

Multiple independent implementations passing broad shared tests would materially strengthen the claim. Interface drift, uncovered methods, or vendor-only behavior would weaken it.

What the cited sources establish

Read the underlying material

Next briefCan users actually leave a wallet, app, or overlay?