Ownership Architecture

graph TD
	owner[Token Owner]
  subgraph Celo
	  lockbox[XERC20Lockbox]
	  XERC20C[XERC20]
	  lockbox--"mint/reeem"-->XERC20C
	  hypMinterC["HyperlaneMinter"] --"mint/burn"--> XERC20C
	  ccipMinterC[CCIPMinter] --"mint/burn"--> XERC20C
	  
  end
  
  hypMinterC <-.-> hypMinterB
 ccipMinterC <-.-> ccipMinterB
  
  subgraph Base
    XERC20B[XERC20] 
    
    hypMinterB[HyperlaneMinter]--"mint/burn"--> XERC20B
	  ccipMinterB[CCIPMinter]--"mint/burn"--> XERC20B
  end
  
  
	%% This is definitely true
  owner --"owns"--> XERC20C 
	owner --"owns"--> XERC20B
	  
	%% This has implications (vs. the minters being owned by Hyperlane/Chainlink repsectably)
  owner --"owns"--> hypMinterC 
  owner --"owns"--> hypMinterB
  owner --"owns"--> ccipMinterC 
  owner --"owns"--> ccipMinterB

Assumptions:

• Token Owner (proxy for asset issuer) is a Celo community multisig that doesn’t have quorum from a single party (to be confirmed: Chainlink to be added)
• Token contracts are proxied and upgradable

Scope: Token Owner owns the minters

• Token owner has ultimate control over safety trust assumptions
• Expanding SuperUSDT to a new chain will require Token Owner buy-in as the Token Owner will configure the minters for the new chain

Chainlink Question: Can Bridges own the minters themselves in the future?

• Bridges could expand SuperUSDT by themselves to a new chain
• Bridges could add safety trust assumptions from new chains without approval of the Token Owner with puts additional risk to the collateral on Celo

⇒ Recommendation: Not by Friday. Longer-term can be evaluated to balance the additional risk against the expansion opportunity. Generally aligned to expand SuperUSDT.