0/ This morning a friend asked me some detailed questions about the governance process of Sushi and made thought more about what we need in the decentralized governance infrastructure:
1/ "The Sushi discounted sales proposal was a formal proposal or a community discussion?"
"More of the latter since it's not on the Snapshot yet"
"Will the voting result have actual power?"
"To move anything in the treasury you'll need the voting approval + multisig approval"
"More of the latter since it's not on the Snapshot yet"
"Will the voting result have actual power?"
"To move anything in the treasury you'll need the voting approval + multisig approval"
2/ "Interesting. Hmm so technically if all the multisig agrees to the proposal, the team can move the treasury even without the Snapshot voting?"
"Well technically if the Snapshot voting didn't pass, the Core won't initiate the transaction to get signatures on Gnosis Safe"
"Well technically if the Snapshot voting didn't pass, the Core won't initiate the transaction to get signatures on Gnosis Safe"
3/ Right now for many DeFi protocols, the governance process usually goes by:
forum discussion ->
core team take the finalized proposal to Snapshot ->
if the vote gets passed the core team send to Gnosis Safe to get multisigs to sign off the treasury related transactions
forum discussion ->
core team take the finalized proposal to Snapshot ->
if the vote gets passed the core team send to Gnosis Safe to get multisigs to sign off the treasury related transactions
4/ There's apparently quite a bit of room for manipulation:
first of all from forum discussion to Snapshot voting it is largely determined by the core team
then there's no code to automatically trigger the multisig process if the vote at Snapshot gets passed
first of all from forum discussion to Snapshot voting it is largely determined by the core team
then there's no code to automatically trigger the multisig process if the vote at Snapshot gets passed
5/ I've always been struggling with the fragmentation of governance infrastructure. It leads to information silos, a less streamlined governance execution process, and lack of checks and balances during the operation moving from one venue to another (e.g. snapshot->gnosis)
6/ My general feeling is that it's much harder to move people away from Discord and likely it's the best social tool to have all the nitty gritty discussions. However, imho any process related to money/treasury, should live on a fully streamlined process backed by codes
7/ The friend (who's a big fan of Decred's fully-planned-out governance design) asked if this lack of well-thought-out governance process could indicate a larger negative impact in the future
8/ My response to that was: you only see a lot of these problems emerge as the application protocols evolve. The level of iteration / required governance in an application protocol is nowhere the same as that in an L1. We can only learn as we go and try to improve over time
9/ These are not problems faced by one application, in this case, Sushi. It's a challenge of the whole existing DAO governance infra. We don't necessarily need an all-in-one infrastructure, but we do need different parts of the process to be more interlocked with each other
10/ In this previous thread the tweet 1 & 2 are really what we need imminently
{fin}
{fin}
https://twitter.com/Mable_Jiang/status/1414805343922651138
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
