Create sUSDS Rate Provider on Base #254
Conversation
| - [ ] The Rate Provider is upgradeable (e.g., via a proxy architecture or an `onlyOwner` function that updates the price source address). | ||
|
|
||
| - [x] Some other portion of the price pipeline is upgradeable (e.g., the token itself, an oracle, or some piece of a larger system that tracks the price). | ||
| - upgradeable component: `SUsds` ([ethereum:0xa3931d71877C0E7a3148CB7Eb4463524FEc27fbD](https://etherscan.io/address/0xa3931d71877C0E7a3148CB7Eb4463524FEc27fbD#readProxyContract)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How did you get to these L1 addresses?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can see that an onlyRole(DATA_PROVIDER_ROLE) can call a function that does
function _setSUSDSData(ISSROracle.SUSDSData memory nextData) internal {
_data = nextData;
emit SetSUSDSData(nextData);
}
The upgrader is deployed at: https://basescan.org/address/0x212871A1C235892F86cAB30E937e18c94AEd8474#code and has an l1Authority. You can investigate the refresh method there and see that it reads from the susds contract and bridges it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow - it was quite an effort to follow all these steps 😂
- Identify you needed DATA_PROVIDER_ROLE to be able to update the data
- Check transactions to find a
grantRoleto0x212871A1C235892F86cAB30E937e18c94AEd8474 - See that it has an l1Authority (that shows up as EOA on Base)
- Check for that same address on L1 to see it has a contract implementation
- See that its implementation has an
l2Oraclethat points to the data provider of the L2
I think I got the whole flow 👍
Thanks for explaining 🙏
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ps: at first I didn't know the keccak transformation of DATA_PROVIDER_ROLE was available within the Read Contract tab, but I just learned that it's trivial to generate that using cast keccak DATA_PROVIDER_ROLE from foundry
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Conclusion | ||
| **Summary judgment: USABLE** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we start using USABLE/UNUSABLE instead of SAFE/UNSAFE?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think using USABLE/UNUSABLE is more appropriate wording
Fixes #233