Storage-layout collision risk across upgrades
Falcon Finance's assessment for RD-F-142 — scored gray on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
Cannot assess storage-layout collision risk across upgrades. No public repository for OZ upgrades-plugin validation. Both USDf and sUSDf have had only 1 upgrade each — minimal multi-upgrade collision history, but future upgrades cannot be analyzed.
Detail #
Etherscan: USDf has 1 Upgraded event, sUSDf has 1 Upgraded event. With only 1 upgrade to the current implementation (from genesis/initialization state), storage collision between N and N+1 implementations is the primary risk going forward. Without source repo, cannot run the OZ upgrades plugin to validate storage layout continuity.
Sources #
- EtherscanUSDf proxy events — no upgrades in last 30 dayshttps://etherscan.io/token/0xFa2B947eEc368f42195f24F36d2aF29f7c24CeC2#eventsretrieved 2026-05-12
Methodology #
Determine whether the OZ upgrades-plugin or manual review flags a storage-layout collision risk between implementation versions.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →