Add Poly Safe multisig by jmoreira-valory · Pull Request #2378 · valory-xyz/open-autonomy

jmoreira-valory · 2026-01-05T13:08:23Z

Proposed changes

Add Poly Safe multisig.

Note: The PR contains tox -e check-generate-all-protocols to fix linters, due to change in year, therefore multiple unrelated files have been changed.

The following issues/refactor have been identified for future work:

Fixes

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? (A breaking change is a fix or feature that would cause existing functionality and APIs to not work as expected.)
Put an x in the box that applies

Non-breaking fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Breaking fix (breaking change which fixes an issue)
Non-breaking feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking feature (breaking change which adds functionality)
Refactor (non-breaking change which changes implementation)
Messy (mixture of the above - requires explanation!)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.

I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
I am making a pull request against the main branch (left side). Also you should start your branch off our main.
Lint and unit tests pass locally with my changes
I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
I have locally run AI agents that could be impacted and they do not present failures derived from my changes
Public-facing documentation has been updated with the changes affected by this PR. Even if the provided contents are not in their final form, all significant information must be included.
Any backwards-incompatible/breaking change has been clearly documented in the upgrading document.

Further comments

jmoreira-valory · 2026-01-05T13:09:29Z

autonomy/chain/constants.py

+        "poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module": "0xA749f605D93B3efcc207C54270d83C6E8fa70fF8",  # Polymarket multisig WITH recovery module
+        "poly_safe_same_address_with_recovery_module": "0xBcb1BAC84B5BcAb350C89c50ADc9064eD15a4485",  # Polymarket same address multisig WITH recovery module


@kupermind Please check that the snake-case naming of these contracts match with the autonolas registry repository.

kupermind · 2026-01-09T17:37:10Z

autonomy/chain/constants.py

        "safe_multisig_with_recovery_module": "0x1a0bFCC27051BCcDDc444578f56A4F5920e0E083",  # Multisig WITH recovery module
        "recovery_module": "0x02C26437B292D86c5F4F21bbCcE0771948274f84",  # Same address multisig WITH recovery module
+        "poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module": "0xA749f605D93B3efcc207C54270d83C6E8fa70fF8",  # Poly Safe multisig WITH recovery module
+        "poly_safe_same_address_with_recovery_module": "0xBcb1BAC84B5BcAb350C89c50ADc9064eD15a4485",  # Poly Safe same address multisig WITH recovery module


Where is this one used? Or just added for now?

Will be used in middleware, this ABI matches the "Same address multisig WITH recovery module" , right?

Alternative: make POLY_SAFE_SAME_ADDRESS_WITH_RECOVERY_MODULE_CONTRACT address = RECOVERY_MODULE_CONTRACT (for symmetry with other contracts), and use the contract 0xBcb1BAC84B5BcAb350C89c50ADc9064eD15a4485 for the very extreme corner cases considered by the team.

Will be removed for now and added in another PR. for now poly_safe_same_address_with_recovery_module = recovery_module

OjusWiZard · 2026-01-09T20:34:27Z

autonomy/chain/service.py

+    create_transaction_hash = registry_contracts.poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module.get_poly_safe_create_transaction_hash(
+        ledger_api=ledger_api,
+        contract_address=contract_address,
+    )
+    sig1 = crypto.sign_message(
+        create_transaction_hash,
+        is_deprecated_mode=True,  # Legacy signature, do not use EIP-191 signing
+    )
+    sig1_bytes = bytes.fromhex(sig1[2:])
+
+    enable_module_hash = registry_contracts.poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module.get_enable_module_transaction_hash(
+        ledger_api=ledger_api,
+        contract_address=contract_address,
+        signer_address=crypto.address,
+    )
+    sig2 = crypto.sign_message(
+        enable_module_hash,
+        is_deprecated_mode=True,  # Legacy signature, do not use EIP-191 signing
+    )
+    sig2_bytes = bytes.fromhex(sig2[2:])
+
+    # Pack both signatures in the format required by PolySafeCreatorWithRecoveryModule.create(...)
+    r1 = sig1_bytes[0:32]
+    s1 = sig1_bytes[32:64]
+    v1 = sig1_bytes[64]
+    data = eth_abi.encode(
+        ["(uint8,bytes32,bytes32)", "bytes"], [(v1, r1, s1), sig2_bytes]
+    )
+
+    return "0x" + data.hex()


can we move this inside the poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module contract? Because

it's a logic heavily related to the contract interaction

we avoid making eth_abi a dependency of OA

Yes we could, but read my comment above: other create deployment data methods are written on this file. This is the equivalent for polysafe. I agree with your comments but we should be consistent with the existing code as well. We can discuss what's the best tradeoff option.

Fixed, opened issues #2381 and #2382

OjusWiZard · 2026-01-09T20:35:32Z

autonomy/chain/service.py

    )


+def get_poly_safe_deployment_payload(


where is this function used?

It's used in middleware. In theory it could be used here as well if we support via CLI create a Poly safe (could be considered as a new feature in another PR).
It has been added here for al"symmetry" with the existing get_XXX_payload methods.

Will open an issue

packages/valory/contracts/poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module/contract.yaml

autonomy/chain/service.py

jmoreira-valory · 2026-01-12T17:34:19Z

autonomy/chain/config.py

                "address": chain_config.rpc,
                "chain_id": chain_config.chain_id,
                "is_gas_estimation_enabled": True,
+                "poa_chain": chain_type in (ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON),


@OjusWiZard

Let's define a constant:

POA_CHAINS = frozenset((ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON))

and then:

Suggested change

"poa_chain": chain_type in (ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON),

"poa_chain": chain_type in POA_CHAINS,

Adamantios · 2026-01-13T08:50:02Z

packages/valory/contracts/poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module/contract.yaml

+  eth-abi:
+    version: ==5.2.0
+  open-aea-ledger-ethereum:
+    version: ==2.0.6
+  open-aea-test-autonomy:
+    version: ==0.21.5
+  web3:
+    version: <8,>=7.0.0


Some dependencies are not used.

I'll remove web3

packages/valory/contracts/recovery_module/contract.yaml

Adamantios · 2026-01-13T08:58:27Z

packages/valory/contracts/poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module/contract.py

+            ledger_api=ledger_api, contract_address=contract_address
+        )
+        return contract_instance.functions.getEnableModuleTransactionHash(
+            signer_address


The signer_address could be checksummed for safety.

Adamantios · 2026-01-13T08:58:57Z

packages/valory/contracts/poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module/contract.py

We need to return a dictionary from contract methods as per the conventions of the framework.

packages/valory/contracts/poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module/contract.py

Adamantios · 2026-01-13T09:10:43Z

autonomy/chain/config.py

                "address": chain_config.rpc,
                "chain_id": chain_config.chain_id,
                "is_gas_estimation_enabled": True,
+                "poa_chain": chain_type in (ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON),


Let's define a constant:

POA_CHAINS = frozenset((ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON))

and then:

Suggested change

"poa_chain": chain_type in (ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON),

"poa_chain": chain_type in POA_CHAINS,

Adamantios · 2026-01-13T09:19:42Z

autonomy/chain/constants.py

+POLY_SAFE_SAME_ADDRESS_WITH_RECOVERY_MODULE_CONTRACT = PublicId.from_str(
+    "valory/poly_safe_same_address_with_recovery_module"
+)  # Poly Safe same address multisig WITH recovery module


Does this exist?

It does not exist, but some other contract packages do not exist either and use their placeholders here, for example gnosis_safe_same_address_multisig. In this case, these placeholders are used in the library to retrieve the address only, not to use the contract package. (their contract implementation is identical to other contracts)

Adamantios · 2026-01-13T09:27:13Z

autonomy/chain/service.py

+        contract_address=contract_address,
+        crypto=crypto,
+    )
+    return "0x" + data.hex()


Could return the data with the prefix from the contract.

Yes, but since the other methods of the contract return bytes (to avoid having to parse and unparse '0x' strings), for consistency this method also returns bytes . I am unsure wha'ts the standard approach here, as I haven't seen an homogeneous criteria for returning outputs in the contracts...

Co-authored-by: Ojuswi Rastogi <55619686+OjusWiZard@users.noreply.github.com>

chore: add polymarket multisig

50ff65f

jmoreira-valory commented Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

kupermind approved these changes Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

jmoreira-valory added 10 commits January 8, 2026 20:35

[no ci] chore: add contract

1e4c41f

[no ci] chore: linters

0ad8a87

[no ci] chore: update constants

bf2e13e

[no ci] chore: docs

d62b32b

fix: linters

26086d4

chore: poly safe deployment payload

7399440

chore: fix generate-all-protocols

353159b

fix: import

4d6cb9a

chore: revert third-party packages

a625487

chore: add missing dependency

8aabc4a

jmoreira-valory changed the title ~~Add polymarket multisig~~ Add Poly Safe multisig Jan 9, 2026

chore: update correct naming

d0d4d59

kupermind reviewed Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

kupermind approved these changes Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

OjusWiZard reviewed Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

chore: bump versions

efe18fd

jmoreira-valory mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2026

Create CLI for PolySafe deployments #2382

Open

jmoreira-valory added 2 commits January 12, 2026 16:07

fix: review fixes

de6e7bf

fix: missing import

acc7669

OjusWiZard previously approved these changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

autonomy/chain/service.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: poa chain in

fc95828

jmoreira-valory dismissed OjusWiZard’s stale review via fc95828 January 12, 2026 17:30

jmoreira-valory commented Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

OjusWiZard previously approved these changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Adamantios reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update autonomy/chain/service.py

8ae0513

Co-authored-by: Ojuswi Rastogi <55619686+OjusWiZard@users.noreply.github.com>

jmoreira-valory dismissed OjusWiZard’s stale review via 8ae0513 January 13, 2026 11:35

jmoreira-valory added 3 commits January 13, 2026 23:52

fix: review fixes

ce2f033

chore: remove poly_safe_same_address_with_recovery_module

bf9fa0a

fix: linters

ddb005d

Adamantios approved these changes Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

jmoreira-valory merged commit 4b7be5d into main Jan 14, 2026
14 of 16 checks passed

jmoreira-valory deleted the feat/add_polymarket_multisigs branch January 14, 2026 15:58

		"poly_safe_creator_with_recovery_module": "0xA749f605D93B3efcc207C54270d83C6E8fa70fF8", # Polymarket multisig WITH recovery module
		"poly_safe_same_address_with_recovery_module": "0xBcb1BAC84B5BcAb350C89c50ADc9064eD15a4485", # Polymarket same address multisig WITH recovery module

	"poa_chain": chain_type in (ChainType.OPTIMISM, ChainType.POLYGON),
	"poa_chain": chain_type in POA_CHAINS,

		)


		def get_poly_safe_deployment_payload(

Conversation

jmoreira-valory commented Jan 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Proposed changes

Fixes

Types of changes

Checklist

Further comments

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jmoreira-valory Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jmoreira-valory Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

jmoreira-valory commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jmoreira-valory Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jmoreira-valory Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading