-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
SMART_CONTRACT_ARCHITECTURE.md
This document describes the conceptual architecture, security model, transaction flow, and operational requirements for smart contracts used by the CeloHT ecosystem.
CeloHT does not require a proprietary token to operate. Smart contracts, where deployed, are intended to provide programmable blockchain functionality rather than create a speculative CeloHT token.
CeloHT Application
│
▼
Wallet Provider
│
▼
User Signature
│
▼
Smart Contract Interface
│
▼
Celo Blockchain
│
┌────────────────┼────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
Payments Treasury Services
│ │ │
└────────────────┼────────────────┘
▼
Blockchain Events
Smart contracts should perform only functions that benefit from blockchain execution.
Potential responsibilities include:
- Payment processing
- Treasury controls
- Program disbursement
- Community-approved transactions
- On-chain accounting
- Event emission
- Access control
Business logic that does not require blockchain execution should remain off-chain.
CeloHT smart contracts should follow these principles:
Only put necessary logic on-chain.
Contract behavior should be understandable and verifiable.
Critical functions should use strict access controls.
Upgradeable contracts should only be used when there is a clear operational requirement.
CeloHT should not introduce a proprietary token merely because smart contracts are being used.
CeloHT Smart Contract System
│
┌─────────────────┼─────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
Payment Module Treasury Module Impact Module
│ │ │
└─────────────────┼─────────────────┘
│
▼
Access Control
│
▼
Celo Blockchain
Individual modules should remain independent wherever practical.
A typical payment flow:
User
│
▼
CeloHT Application
│
▼
Transaction Request
│
▼
Wallet
│
▼
User Signature
│
▼
Celo Blockchain
│
▼
Contract / Recipient
│
▼
Transaction Confirmation
The application should display transaction status and transaction identifiers whenever appropriate.
Treasury operations should not rely on a single unrestricted account where stronger controls are practical.
Conceptual structure:
Community Governance
│
▼
Proposal Process
│
▼
Treasury Controls
│
┌─────────┼─────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
Program Operations Impact
Funding Funding Funding
For high-value treasury operations, multisignature controls may be considered.
Administrative functions should be protected.
Possible roles:
ADMIN
│
├── Contract Configuration
│
├── Emergency Controls
│
└── Governance Operations
Access permissions should be documented and periodically reviewed.
Contracts should emit events for important state changes.
Examples:
PaymentExecuted
TreasuryTransfer
ProgramFunded
AgentRegistered
AgentStatusChanged
ConfigurationUpdated
EmergencyAction
Events provide an auditable history for off-chain systems and blockchain explorers.
Contracts should use explicit failure conditions.
Examples:
- Unauthorized caller
- Insufficient balance
- Invalid recipient
- Invalid amount
- Paused contract
- Invalid configuration
- Failed external call
Failure states should not silently produce unexpected outcomes.
Smart contracts should be developed with security as a primary requirement.
Recommended practices:
- Unit testing
- Integration testing
- Static analysis
- Dependency review
- Access-control review
- Reentrancy protection where applicable
- Integer safety
- Input validation
- Emergency procedures
- Contract verification
High-risk contracts should receive independent security review before significant funds are placed under their control.
Design
│
▼
Specification
│
▼
Implementation
│
▼
Unit Tests
│
▼
Security Review
│
▼
Testnet Deployment
│
▼
Integration Testing
│
▼
Mainnet Deployment
│
▼
Verification
│
▼
Monitoring
Deployment should never be treated as the end of the security lifecycle.
Every production contract should have, where technically possible:
- Contract address
- Network
- Deployment date
- Source-code verification
- ABI
- Deployment transaction
- Responsible repository
- Documentation
These references should be published in project documentation.
Where contracts control significant value, emergency controls may be implemented.
Conceptually:
Normal Operation
│
▼
Contract Active
│
│ Security Incident
▼
Emergency Control
│
▼
Restricted / Paused Operation
│
▼
Investigation
│
▼
Recovery
Emergency controls must themselves be carefully secured because excessive administrative power creates a centralization and security risk.
If upgradeable contracts are used, CeloHT should publicly document:
- Why the contract is upgradeable
- Who can authorize upgrades
- Upgrade mechanism
- Delay mechanisms
- Emergency procedures
- Governance requirements
Users should never be expected to trust undocumented administrative powers.
CeloHT's smart-contract architecture does not require a CeloHT token.
Celo Network
│
├── CELO
│
└── cUSD
│
▼
CeloHT Services
The project should avoid creating token economics unless there is a clearly documented, legally reviewed, technically justified use case.
Testing should occur at multiple levels:
Unit Tests
│
▼
Contract Tests
│
▼
Integration Tests
│
▼
Frontend / Wallet Tests
│
▼
End-to-End Tests
Critical financial paths should receive dedicated test coverage.
Before considering a production contract complete:
- Address published
- Network identified
- Source code verified
- ABI documented
- Tests passing
- Access control documented
- Administrative roles documented
- Security review completed where appropriate
- Emergency procedures documented
- Repository linked
- Deployment transaction documented
Document: Smart Contract Architecture Version: 1.0 Project: CeloHT Blockchain: Celo Token Model: No proprietary CeloHT token
© 2026 CeloHT - Open Source. Global Impact. Licensed under Apache.