I’m working on a DeFi protocol and debating whether to implement proxy-based upgradeability (e.g., using OpenZeppelin’s Transparent or UUPS pattern). While the flexibility is great for iterating post-deployment, I’m concerned about the attack surface and trust assumptions involved with admin keys or upgrade functions.
- How do you all balance upgradeability with decentralization and long-term security?
-
Are there any best practices you follow for multi-sig access or time-locking upgrades?
-
Is anyone using immutable contracts with external governance layers instead?
Would appreciate any insights from those who've shipped projects or been through audits. Always happy to learn from real-world decisions, good or bad.
Great question — this is one of those core DeFi design trade-offs that doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all answer.
I’ve worked on a couple projects that used UUPS proxies, mainly because of their gas efficiency and smaller bytecode footprint. But yeah, you’re spot on — the flexibility comes with added risk, especially around the upgrade function and delegatecall handling. A single bad upgrade (or compromised admin) can tank everything.
Here’s what we’ve learned from experience:
🔐 Multi-Sig Admin: Absolute must. We usually go with a 3-of-5 or 4-of-7 Gnosis Safe setup for upgrade functions, depending on team size. Add diverse keyholders (not just devs) and include a recovery mechanism if one signer loses access.
⏱ Timelocks: Super important for transparency and user trust. We use a 48–72 hour timelock on all critical upgrades — enough time for the community and security folks to spot anything suspicious.
🛡 Upgradeable + Immutable Combo: One pattern we’ve seen work well is using immutable contracts for core logic or funds custody, and wrapping upgradeable logic around the periphery — e.g., strategy modules, fee logic, etc. This lets you adapt while keeping the “money layer” locked down.
🧠 Audit-Ready Upgrade Plans: When planning an upgrade, we treat it like a new deployment: full internal review, ideally external audit (even if light), and open-source the proposed code ahead of time. You’d be surprised how often the community spots something even auditors miss.
🧱 Governance Layers: Some protocols push upgrade powers to token governance, but that opens up new risks (governance capture, low voter participation). Works best when paired with clear quorum + delay rules and maybe a security council override.
All that said, if your protocol is simple, sometimes immutability is underrated — less to worry about, and users trust you more when there’s nothing to “rug.”
Would love to hear others’ experiences too. These trade-offs are where protocol design really gets interesting.
