Safe{Core} Protocol Whitepaper

[lukas]

@andfletcher

This sounds exciting. Registries seem powerful and might act as bad actors by providing false/dangerous access to modules. Like, a register could, in theory, list modules that, at first glance, have no security risk, and as far as I know, modules (can) bypass the signature requirements of the safe?

Would it not be wise to add some slashing component to registers, or are there other methods in the thinking process? Then again, how much value would a register need to stake to ensure the security of the accounts it’s connected to, though question.

Looking forward to seeing how this evolves.

Even with Registries, users will have to actively enable a module. So it’s in any case additional security on top of how Safe worked so far.

And to your point, indeed there can be different additional security properties on top of just trusting the registry maintainers. In general there may be very different approaches to maintaining registries from a trusted team just leveraging its expertise and reputation, to a decentralised mechanism maintaining a registry using incentives / slashing, etc. The Safe{Core} Protocol is itself agnostic towards how the registries operate.