fix #49 (Multiple KYC Providers) -> TBD in V2 #91
Conversation
|
Bit confused by the function |
|
Yes, I try to change the concept now the customer can whitelist themselves. It will make the process easy and more investor-oriented. if an owner can whitelist, the owner/issuer needs the KYC address of the investor and the investor address to a call the addToWhiteList(address _whitelistedAddress, address _KYC). Provide your suggestion which way we have to go the current one or the owner based. |
Unfortunately that doesn't make much sense. The only person that should be able to add someone to the whitelist is the Issuer. |
|
ok fair enough, So we are final that only issuer can call |
|
Yeah agree with @pabloruiz55 , we need to remove KYC provider from adding to whitelist/blacklist on a security token. They can build their mapping of user verifications all they want, but should be up to the issuer to add them in. |
contracts/SecurityToken.sol
Outdated
| function addToWhitelist(address _whitelistAddress) public returns (bool success) { | ||
| require(KYC == msg.sender || owner == msg.sender); | ||
| var (jurisdiction, accredited, role, verified, expires) = PolyCustomers.getCustomer(KYC, _whitelistAddress); | ||
| function addToWhitelist(address _KYC) public returns (bool success) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is missing what we discussed yesterday about having the issuer be the only one that can add addresses to the whitelist.
| * @return bool | ||
| */ | ||
|
|
||
| function addAllowedKYC(address[10] _whiteListedKYC) internal returns(bool) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would a new KYC provider be added later on?
| * @param _whiteListedKYC Array of permitted providers. | ||
| * @return bool | ||
| */ | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we are missing a function to allow the issuer to disable/reenable a KYC provider if they want to stop using one of them. If a KYC provider is disabled, then they can't be used to verify new investors.
We need to figure out what we would do with addresses already verified by a KYC provider if it gets disabled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the particular template is used by one securitytoken only then we can add the functionality of adding more KYC providers and disable them in the Template contract. otherwise, we can maintain their allowedKYC mapping in the security token itself. But I think it doesn't have the sense to use the whitelistedKYC array in the first place(Template Constructor).
I am not sure whether the template is used by more than one securityToken or used by one only.
if we can confirm the above line then I can re-design accordingly
|
Leaving this PR for V2 |
I didn't re-write the test cases yet because of the high chance of modification in the logic. Please review it once with the logic. after approval, I will rewrite the test cases.