Multisig for incoming transactions❓

SAFE without doubt offers highest level of security on ongoing transactions, it would be nice to see this security extended to incoming transactions.

(Reasons below)

A team member of Tornado Cash randomly sent out little amount of ETH from the project’s contract which is being monitored by OFAC for a reason best known to them.
This actions has landed some users into unwanted sanctions as some DeFi projects has blacklisted their address from interacting with their protocols in order not to stain their own pools with sanctioned tokens.

Also, This time yesterday 18th August, 2022, Unknown spammer was sending fake $SAFE token to qualified addresses of potential SAFE airdrop which could harm those Safe Wallets if not handled well.

A development to curtail this implicating act in the crypto space would be welcome and appreciated by the users and this made me wonder if the dev team of SAFE can extend their magic to bring on a feature tagged “Claim Fund to Wallet”

NOMAD, A bridging protocol has something related to this “Claim Fund to Wallet” where users will have to claim their token to their wallet on the destination chain after bridging and every user can only claim what belongs to them. You can’t claim mine, I can’t claim yours.

I’m wondering how possible is one address out of the other 2 addresses that appeared on our SAFE namely; Factory address and MasterCopy address temporarily host the incoming fund pending the time owners claimed it to SAFE address which is the destination address.

I have little to zero knowledge in coding, Blame me not if you find any of the above suggestions awful.

2 Likes

This is definitely interersting. I think it is an anti-pattern that anyone can just send assets to any address without the approval of the addresses’ owner. Ideally a recipient always actively consents to an incoming transfer.

Also a pattern like you described would might even enabling better cross-chain transfer UX. Where a user could send a cheap transfer on a L2 and the recipient address could then decide to claim the assets to their L2 account or pay the fees to bridge to L1. That way it would be the receiver taking paying the costs if they would want the assets to be on L1 for max security, not the sender which couldn’t care less and just wants the cheapest and fastest transaction.

I don’t think this should involve factory or mastercopy though, that sounds almost like a seperate set of smart contracts that would have to created.

3 Likes

Thanks for reading through!

1 Like