erasureprotocol
Review decentralization guarantees
@0age @kenchangh What are you thoughts on this:
- Should it be possible for a factory to produce contracts without registering them?
- Should we remove the
retireFactory()function because it opens up the possibility of us being compelled to shut down factories?
Factories would of course be able to produce contracts without registering them - the assumption is that the registry controller would not add them as approved factories that can add to the registry unless they were registering everything, though.
I think you still want to be able to retire factories - though you may eventually want to build factories that will try to submit to the registry and not revert / still proceed with the deployments in the event the registry has retired them.
The most robust way forward for decentralizing a registry in general is to eventually transfer ownership to a DAO. That way you can still manage the registry, but no one entity can be coerced or unilaterally take malicious action.
I think you still want to be able to retire factories
What does this give us? Only thing I can think of is the ability to shut down factories that have bugs. We could achieve this same outcome by moving the DApps to the new factories and filtering out instances made on the old factories.
This can always be implemented with a wrapper contract. Delaying till further notice