Classic `Ownable`(or `Owned`) or `Ownable2Step`

[MerlinEgalite]

[Rubilmax]

Related discussion: #43 (comment)

[MerlinEgalite]

Original discussion: #43 (comment)

The issue was raised before the discussion but that does not matter

[MathisGD]

I'm not even sure that we need a transferOwnership function. So I would say no (transferOwnership will never be used).

[QGarchery]

The one use case I can see for transferring ownership is when deciding to put the fee back to 0 forever, as a donation of the protocol to the world 🤩 (so only renounceOwnership)

[MerlinEgalite]

There might be a governance setup update that is necessary to do for whatever reason we would be stuck with the old system.

[MathisGD]

Can't the DAO deploy blue ?

[Rubilmax]

Can't the DAO deploy blue ?

I believe there can be a sudden case where the DAO absolutely needs to transfer ownership. I don't think saving a single function is worth it here.

[MerlinEgalite]

After discussion we've decided to keep it, as we might need to change to a cleaner governance setup later on

[MathisGD]

I still think that we don't need 2 steps.

[Rubilmax]

I still think that we don't need 2 steps.

The reason I suggested 2 steps first is that Spearbiit suggested it in ma3, to avoid transferring to a dead address. I honestly don't think we need any kind of input sanitization, so I'm ok to not have 2 steps. I'm still in favor of inheriting OZ (rather than rebuilding it ourselves).

[MerlinEgalite]

Ok since we've decided to implement events (#36) the only blocker for not using an already written library is code philosophy, am I right?

[Rubilmax]

Everything can be set subjective lol but it can also be about safety: renounceOwnership vs transferOwnership(address(0)). Let's go for OZ's Ownable?