cwgoes
commented
3 years ago This one will never work in the current state because the sender and receiver are asserted in the static calls.
Do you mean e.g. that the static calls assert that a particular account sent tokens? This check can just be removed.
For example, this line can be safely deleted. I just included it in the original static contracts for clarity on what was happening, but the recipient of tokens doesn't actually care where they come from (and the sender shouldn't have permissions to send them from anywhere else unless the sender is this kind of global maker contract).
MarvinJanssen
decapinator
This one will never work in the current state because the sender and receiver are asserted in the static calls. Apart from that, the signatures validate with the Global Maker contract. I opted to pass some information to the Global Maker when it is constructed on where the maker address (/ from address) for specific call data will be. I do this by providing a list of function signatures and corresponding byte offsets. It makes it rather flexible and helper functions could be created to add more signatures without having to redeploy the contract.
There are multiple ways to get this to work. I assume a quick solution could be to add a call recipient address to
Order(or something), and when present, pass that to the static call instead of the maker. Huge downside is that we have to changeOrder, obviously. Another possible solution is abandoning this model and looking at a shared proxy contract via the registry perhaps.Input is appreciated.