Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove the need for strategies to be approved #574

Closed
9 tasks
0xOneTony opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
9 tasks

Remove the need for strategies to be approved #574

0xOneTony opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@0xOneTony
Copy link

Following on Kevin’s list we want to

remove the paternalizing requirement that allo team "approves" every strategy.

Context

Currently there are 2 options to create a new Round.

  1. With cloneable strategy. Allo stores a mapping with addresses of Strategies that are approved by the protocol and can be safely cloned for a new Round.
  2. With a custom strategy. The user provides an already deployed Strategy contract that is not part of the accepted cloneable mapping.


Solution

To achieve that we should update the Allo contract as:

  • We assume all strategies cloneable/approved
  • Removal of cloneableStrategies mapping
  • Removal of createPoolWithCustomStrategy function
  • Removal of addToCloneableStrategies function
  • Removal of removeFromCloneableStrategies function
  • Removal of _isCloneableStrategy & isCloneableStrategy functions
  • Update createPool
  • Update docs
  • Update tests

Questions

Is this change gonna affect the SDK or any other offchain tool that we should account for?

@carlbarrdahl
Copy link
Contributor

Looks great to me!

Can we also remove this line or is that a separate issue? (#6 in @owocki 's list)

if (!registry.isOwnerOrMemberOfProfile(_profileId, msg.sender)) revert UNAUTHORIZED();

Removing this line will reduce friction in creating pools for new users.
What are your thoughts @thelostone-mc ?

@0xOneTony
Copy link
Author

Can we also remove this line or is that a separate issue? (#6 in @owocki 's list)

Yes, I agree, will open a different issue and PR for this

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants