explicitly state the features of a contract for a more fair comparison

[alephao]

Many of the contracts here have some extra functionality, for example if we look at the ERC20s, Solmate and Maple implements ERC-2612 permits, while the basic OZ's ERC20 doesn't.

Comparing Solmate vs Maple is fair, but OZ vs Solmate is not.

I think it might be a good idea to categorize them somehow, current idea is:

On READMES

Provide a table with features. Example for ERC20:

Contract/Features	ERC2612	Another Feature
Solmate	✅	✅
Maple	✅	❌
OZ	❌	✅
OZ with Permit	✅	✅

On JSON

ERC20
  Solmate
    features: [ERC2612]
  Maple
    features: [ERC2612]
  OZ:
    features: []

ERC721
  OZ:
    features: []
  A
    features: [Enumerable]
  OZEnumerable
    features: [Enumerable]

(sorry for being lazy and not writing json by hand, but you got the idea)

[lucas-manuel]

I think the tables the easiest to refer to/understand