If the upgrade process is too centralized, it creates a single point of failure, and generally considered unethical to the users
Game
Web3 does not like centralized stuff. What are the risks in this contract?
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT// Open me in VSCode and really think before opening the hints!// Add @audit tags wherever suspicious// Go to the solidity docs to complete missing knowledge of what's happening here// Solve by drafting a fix!pragmasolidity ^0.8.0;contract CentralizedProxy {addresspublic implementation;addresspublic admin;constructor(address_implementation) { implementation = _implementation; admin = msg.sender; }functionupdateImplementation(address newImplementation) public {require(msg.sender == admin,"Only admin can update the implementation"); implementation = newImplementation; }// Fallback function that forwards calls to the implementation contractfallback() externalpayable { (bool success, ) = implementation.delegatecall(msg.data);require(success,"Delegatecall failed"); }}
Consider how decentralizing control over updates or requiring multiple approvals could mitigate the risk of a single point of failure.
Multi-signature wallets or decentralized governance mechanisms are common solutions for critical operations that need more security and transparency.
contract DecentralizedProxy {addresspublic implementation;addresspublic admin;constructor(address_implementation,address_admin) { implementation = _implementation; admin = _admin; // Fix: Set multi-signature wallet or governance contract as the admin }functionupdateImplementation(address newImplementation) public {require(msg.sender == admin,"Only admin (multi-sig) can update the implementation"); implementation = newImplementation; }fallback() externalpayable { (bool success, ) = implementation.delegatecall(msg.data);require(success,"Delegatecall failed"); }}