Hi @Zergity
It looks interesting for me. Certainly has thoughts inline with my RFC on user-centric asset model.
I would suggest updating goals so that it does not mention implementation specific structures, i.e. “Various storage management strategies can be defined and led by smart contract developer community”.
Could you elaborate problem for the execution clients, why this memory mapping pattern would be preferred for them?
Regarding implementation:
_key function can be modified to return storage in ERC-7201 name-spaced storage compatible way.
Storage protection generally will be a concern here since applications could attempt to find key that collides to another app.
Another way to think of this is a factory contract that deploys separate memory implementation for app upon request.
Few benefits of such - Factories could implement granular storage management strategies supporting wider use-case variety such as permissioning application access to create memory on user premise.