UUPS vs UpgradeableBeacon

[gigamesh]

Hi - I'm having a hard time understanding the differences between the UUPS pattern and the UpgradeableBeacon. In both cases, the upgrade can be handled by a single transaction, correct? However it sounds like the Beacon pattern has some gas savings benefits? If that's the case, what are the benefits of UUPS over the Beacon pattern?

[Amxx]

Hello @gigamesh

UUPS

• the proxy point to an implementation AND the implementation contains the upgrade logic.
• when doing an upgrade, you call the proxy, then call is relayed to the implementation, and if everything is fine (accesscontrol / security protection) the proxy target will change to the new implementation
• if you have many proxies, you need to upgrade them one at a time

BeaconProxy

• you have to deploy and implementation, a beacon that references the implementation, and a proxy that references the proxy
• neither the proxy nor the implementation contains any upgrade logic
• whenever the proxy receives a call, it asks the beacon which is the address of the implementation and will delegate call to it.
• when doing an upgrade, you go to the beacon and tell it to reference a new implementation
• if you have many proxies pointing to the same beacon, setting a new implementation at the beacon level will upgrade all proxy simultaneously (and for cheap)
• What not to do: don't create a new beacon everytime you want to upgrade and then go to the proxy to tell them to use the new beacon.

[gigamesh]

Big thanks! Very helpful.

The impression I get is that the primary benefit of UUPS is it allows the proxies to opt-in to upgrades, while the Beacon requires the proxy owners to trust the Beacon admin.

Does that sound right? Are there any other benefits to UUPS?

EDIT:
Already got the info I was looking for from Santiago. thank you

A more gas-efficient upgradeable proxy by not using storage

Sorry, I missed that bit! Beacon is not cheaper (in terms of gas) than UUPS. For each call, UUPS only requires one SLOAD (storage read) to fetch the implementation address. On the other hand, Beacon requires an SLOAD to get the beacon address and another SLOAD to get the implementation address at the beacon contract, plus the CALL to the beacon. In that regard, UUPS is cheaper than Beacon. Beacon is better in terms of simultaneous upgrades. You can upgrade multiple proxies in a single tx, wher…

[Amxx]

I'd say UUPS and Beacon target different usecases.

• UUPS: each proxy is independent, and has its own lifecycle with its own upgrade process
• Beacon: multiple proxies share a common upgrade process, with common governance

[_Sky]

Just a question/note here:

When you said: " you have to deploy and implementation, a beacon that references the implementation, and a proxy that references the proxy"

Whas it is supposed to say: "and a proxy that references the beacon" ??

Thanks.

[remedcu]

@Amxx

you have to deploy and implementation, a beacon that references the implementation, and a proxy that references the proxy

Yes, I think the line should be:

"you have to deploy an implementation, a beacon that references the implementation, and a proxy that references the beacon"