IIP-64: Methodologist Smart Contract Permissioning

Strongly in favor - will vote FOR!

Thanks for the work on this! FOR

1 Like

Hey @Pepperoni_Joe would you mind moving this to proposed and assigning a number?

1 Like

I have updated this as IIP-64 and changed status to proposed.

Creating a discord channel next :+1:

1 Like

:triangular_flag_on_post: IIP-64 accidentally went live for voting with the incorrect title.

After obtaining approval from the author, and due to the confusion this would cause, I have deleted the Snapshot vote.

At time of deletion, only 1 INDEX has been cast.

Stay tuned for next steps – should be made clear tomorrow when folks are awake and online :sunny:


this vote went live earlier today


[just the messenger :mailbox_with_mail: ]

1 Like

Confirming this IIP has successfully passed :ballot_box_with_check:


Hey guys, following up on this conversation here.

Our initial spec for implementing this is here: Manager Permissions Summary - Google Docs

What is important to note is that there are security considerations the product team has to consider. For example, the ability to remove a module in an emergency situation where there is a bug in the contract. We encourage the Coop to treat this as a non-negotiable requirement. We’ve designed a number of additional actions that limit the Operator’s power in such situations.

The spec above and the ITIP linked at the bottom go through our thinking in detail.

Tagging relevant methodologies for visibility: @snasps @Thomas_Hepner @Jo_K
Tagging relevant PWG members to continue the conversation: @overanalyser @catjam @Cavalier_Eth


Hey @puniaviision - thanks for following up!

After our conversation today, Kiba and I both reviewed the ITIP.

We have no major concerns, but do have a few quick questions:

  1. Are there plans to do a security audit on the manager system?

  2. For resolveEmergency can we specify which emergency/module or is it intended to be a global reset?

Otherwise, looks good!

@puniaviision (please tag most appropriate inputs as necessary)

The GovOps WG is seeking clarity around the execution of this IIP; please advise.

cc: @sixtykeys @Lavi @Mringz

1 Like

We have yet to upgrade previous FLIs, but are implementing the new permissioning for future FLIs.

1 Like

Appreciate the update @puniaviision

What is the currently planned implementation timeline on the former?

1 Like

Will ask @afromac here!

Though I messed up and only flagged this as an issue to him recently. Hopefully, we can get it on EWG’s sprint soon as the lift shouldn’t be too big. Just coordination with DFP to execute the upgrade.


Thanks @mel.eth and @puniaviision. Have reached out to DFP to coordinate on getting this executed.

Loving this proactive approach to chasing up IIPs!

:clap: GOWG


Thanks @afromac - Please update this space once a timeline has been established or execution is considered complete.

Much appreciated and thanks for the quick response!

Hey. Any update on this request?
Vote passed on August 6: Snapshot


@Etienne apologies for the delay. I have been trying to coordinate with EWG on this. I will get an answer and revert to you today.


Hey folks, sorry for the delay. This smart contract upgrade turned out to be a heavier lift than expected since we’re dealing with sensitive material that must be executed perfectly. The deployment scripts have been raised for review with Set but they are currently reviewing other higher priority items (e.g. intrinsic productivity) to enable new product launches

You can get a sense of the scope of work here: IIP-72 & IIP-64 Manager Upgrades - Google Docs


Hey @dylan seeing as the manager upgrades for the FLI products have been completed, are there any updates in relation to this IIP?

Manager upgrades have been completed for FLI products, but DPI/MVI & BED still have not been upgraded. This work is being scheduled

1 Like