Skip to content

Conversation

@tdenisenko
Copy link

No description provided.

@tdenisenko tdenisenko self-assigned this Jul 17, 2025
@tdenisenko tdenisenko requested review from bxmmm1 and ksatyarth2 July 17, 2025 10:13

| Name | Proxy | Implementation | Notes |
| ----------------------------- | ----- | -------------- | ----- |
| PufferVault (pufETH) | [0xd4A57B33bB84903e7B180f885bb64a2a8b140D85](https://hoodi.etherscan.io/address/0xd4A57B33bB84903e7B180f885bb64a2a8b140D85) | [0xb8405eff81b9227a08e47b094f364bee0148c1e4](https://hoodi.etherscan.io/address/0xb8405eff81b9227a08e47b094f364bee0148c1e4) | Deployed via DeployPufETH |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have a couple of questions:

  • Why doesn't this file follow the same structure as Mainnet or Holesky files? I'm missing some contracts (PufferDepositor, PufferModuleBeacon, etc) and others are out of order (PufferOracle, PufferModuleManager)
  • Why some of the contracts have been deployed without a proxy, compared to mainnet/Holesky? PufferProtocol, ValidatorTicket, etc

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants