I have debated with myself about smart contract's admin keys and ownership and how this can occur in different ways. I will try to point some of the findings that I have found:

Considering this context, I have the following questions that we could discuss here:

  1. It seems like we have orthogonal concepts here: contract ownerships and proxy contracts containing their owners. As a sanity checking, is it necessarily a proxy owner to be the same as the implementation contract's owner? (Assuming, e.g., the implementation contract inherited some of the mentioned interfaces from OpenZeppelin such as Ownable, etc.)

  2. Have you seen any other interfaces other than OpenZepellin's that are also utilized by developers that need to deal with ownership relations?

  3. If we wanted to track all ownership relations on the Ethereum blockchain, would there be more than enough parse calls of OpenZepellin contracts such as Ownable, etc., that tell about ownership assignment/revocation/transfer?

  4. Is there any estimate on how broad in whole Ethereum history OpenZepellin's adoption versus something else on this aspect?

  • It is better to ask unrelated questions separately. There are other implementations for ownership and/or authorization. For example Dappsys' DSAuth dapp.tools/dappsys/ds-auth.html. It should be possible to have separate owners for proxy's and implementations. I don't understand item 3.
    – Ismael
    Jul 3 at 7:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.