Comment on page
One of the biggest goals for FNDZ v2 is to have upgradable funds. Finding an appropriate pattern was a challenging task because: We have different types of contracts that comprise and are shared by funds, e.g., fund libraries, plugins (fees, policies, and DeFi adapters), infrastructure that can persist between releases, etc, It is important to our philosophy for both fund managers and retail users to have the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of every update (i.e., we can't change how a PerformanceFee works for every fund that is already using it)
The pattern that we settled on is a user-initiated partial migration (essential state only) from an old release to the current release. The essential state for a fund is:
- its holdings (i.e., token balances)
- its accounting of depositor shares in the fund
- access control for ownership and state-changing interactions
This migration pattern is accomplished through two persistent contracts: a Dispatcher and per-fund VaultProxy instances.
The "essential state" described above lives in per-fund VaultProxy contract instances, which are upgradable contracts following the EIP-1822 proxy pattern. The VaultProxy specifies a VaultLib as its target logic, and these logic contracts are deployed per release, and swapped out during a migration. A VaultLibBaseCore contract defines the absolutely essential state and logic for every VaultProxy.
This includes: a standard ERC20 implementation called SharesTokenBase the functions required of a IProxiableVault called by the Dispatcher core access control roles: owner, accessor, creator, and migrator The owner is the fund's owner. The migrator is an optional role to allow a non-owner to migrate the fund The creator is the Dispatcher contract, and only this role is allowed to update the accessor and vaultLib values.
The accessor is the primary account that can make state-changing calls to the VaultProxy . In practice, this is the release-level contract that interacts with a vault's assets, updates shares balances, etc. This extremely abstract interface - in which a VaultProxy needs no knowledge about a release other than which caller can write state - allows for nearly limitless possibilities for release-level architecture.
The VaultLibBaseCore contract can be extended with new storage and events by implementing a new VaultLibBaseN that extends the previous base. For example, this first release implements abstract contract VaultLibBase1 is VaultLibBaseCore . The next release that adds to state or events would continue this pattern with abstract contract VaultLibBase2 is VaultLibBase1 , and so on.
The release itself will provide a VaultLib that extends the latest VaultLibBaseN implementation with the required logic of that release.
An overarching, non-upgradable Dispatcher contract is charged with:
- Deploying new instances of VaultProxy
- Migrating a VaultProxy from an old release to the current release
- maintaining global state such as the current release, the global owner (i.e., the FNDZ Council) and the default symbol value for fund shares tokens
The Dispatcher stores the currentFundDeployer (a generic reference to the latest release's contract that is responsible for deploying and migrating funds), and only a msg.sender with that value is allowed to call functions to deploy or migrate a VaultProxy .
This release-level FundDeployer can optionally implement migration hooks provided by IMigrationHookHandler, which give the release an opportunity to run arbitrary logic as the Dispatcher invokes those hooks at every step of the migration process.
As was the case described above with the VaultLibBaseCore , this abstracted notion of a FundDeployer - in which the Dispatcher only cares about its identity for access and for optional callbacks - is totally unrestrictive to the shape of the release-level protocol.
Release-level contracts, then, are mostly arbitrary from the standpoint of these persistent contracts, offering maximum flexibility for future iterations and changes.