Update EIP-5749: Move to last call

[kvhnuke]

please refer to #5912 (comment) to comments regarding title and the reason for evmproviders

[eth-bot]

A critical exception has occurred:
Message: pr 6018 is already merged; quitting
(cc @alita-moore, @mryalamanchi)

[Pandapip1]

Line 18 has an incomplete sentence.
Line 33 has a random ..etc. This should be removed, since it doesn't add anything and doesn't make sense in the context of the list ("et cetera" is not an example).
Line 35 has a small mistake: it says "only display" when it should really be "display" (web3modal and web3onboard will still show potentially uninstalled options by the nature that they don't inject either window.ethereum or window.evmproviders)
Line 68: The "well" in "well documented" can be removed
Line 71 and 78: ``` should be replaced with ```text
Line 87-91: This list should be inlined so that it's all one sentence.
Line 122: "make sure" should be replaced with "ensure"

[kvhnuke]

@Pandapip1 let me know if I miss anything, all requested changes should be done

[Pandapip1]

Apart from this one minor nit, LGTM

[kdenhartog]

How do you expect this to interact with EIP-5593? I'd think we should resolve this before moving this to last call otherwise we may hit incompatibilities that have to be resolved separately. Out of curiosity how many wallets have reviewed this work currently and are supportive of it? Also are you aware that MetaMask is looking to start modifying their ETH provider based on Chain Agnostic Standards Alliance's CAIP-25 so much of this work may become incompatible with the largest wallet in this space?

For me, I don't object to the content in this, but I do to the quick status update without making sure that wallet providers plan to implement this breaking change and that this work doesn't interfere with other efforts to update the provider object.

[kvhnuke]

How do you expect this to interact with EIP-5593? I'd think we should resolve this before moving this to last call otherwise we may hit incompatibilities that have to be resolved separately. Out of curiosity how many wallets have reviewed this work currently and are supportive of it? Also are you aware that MetaMask is looking to start modifying their ETH provider based on Chain Agnostic Standards Alliance's CAIP-25 so much of this work may become incompatible with the largest wallet in this space?

For me, I don't object to the content in this, but I do to the quick status update without making sure that wallet providers plan to implement this breaking change and that this work doesn't interfere with other efforts to update the provider object.

I believe discussions regarding the proposal should happen under the discussion link, but to answer your question,
this will not interfere with EIP-5593, it is still upto the extension wallet to decide when to inject and it could be based on user settings.

Whole goal of this EIP is for wallets to open up a new avenue so dapps can detect which wallets are installed by the user, fight
for window.ethereum will continue to happen for the near future as this EIP is not a breaking change. However, this EIP will let wallets to inject also under window.evmproviders={} then dapps can detect that.
we already received support from few major wallets and major web3 onboarding libraries. I know MM team is aware and we are willing to make a PR to the MM team once this is finalized

chain agnostic standards are different topic where we have to redo the whole communication layer, I think we should visit that once that kind of standard turn into a reality

[Pandapip1]

I'd say it would be up to EIP-5593 to specify when window.evmproviders is injected. Compatibility with EIP-5593 seems out of the scope of this EIP, but compatibility with this EIP seems to me to be in the scope of EIP-5593.

[Pandapip1]

LGTM.

[kvhnuke]

LGTM.

Thank you!!!