Minimal Proxy Contract

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open ERC 1167 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: To simply and cheaply clone contract functionality in an immutable way, this standard specifies a minimal bytecode implementation that delegates all calls to a known, fixed address.
3. Name the object that changes: Minimal Proxy Contract.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing ERC 1167 at the status the text itself states: Final.
• The object that has to change is Minimal Proxy Contract. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What does Minimal Proxy Contract charge, reject, or redefine on the first touch versus a later one?
• Does a reverted subcall roll the change back?
• Can you point at the object in a client: Minimal Proxy Contract?

Terms

ERC 1167

The public text titled Minimal Proxy Contract.

Final

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.

What the design proposes

• To simply and cheaply clone contract functionality in an immutable way, this standard specifies a minimal bytecode implementation that delegates all calls to a known, fixed address.
• By standardizing on a known minimal bytecode redirect implementation, this standard allows users and third party tools (e.g.
• Etherscan) to (a) simply discover that a contract will always redirect in a known manner and (b) depend on the behavior of the code at the destination contract as the behavior of the redirecting contract.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: By standardizing on a known minimal bytecode redirect implementation, this standard allows users and third party tools (e.g.
• Locate Minimal Proxy Contract in ERC 1167 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A gas or opcode change is not a throughput benchmark. It is a relative price and a validity rule.
• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
• The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use ERC 1167 when a pitch says 'Minimal Proxy Contract' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.