Authorizing the CGWG to Facilitate RFPs

Proposals
1

Authorizing the CGWG to Facilitate RFPs

Authors: Compound Governance Working Group (CGWG)

Background

In recent months, members of the Compound DAO have increasingly requested a structured Request for Proposal (RFP) process for evaluating competing initiatives. The Compound Governance WG (CGWG) has stepped in to facilitate several such RFPs on an ad-hoc basis. For example, when multiple teams proposed divergent designs for a Staked COMP mechanism, we helped launch a coordinated RFP to avoid disjointed efforts and conflicting votes for the future vote. Similarly, we organized RFPs to source the best Oracle Extractable Value solution and to evaluate options for a Voting Service Provider. These RFPs allow the DAO to compare proposals side-by-side in one framework instead of handling separate proposals in isolation.

These efforts have been in response to community needs, and we will continue to help facilitate the governance process and discussion for the DAO. Since the authority and process to run governance RFPs have not been formally defined or approved yet by the DAO, the purpose of this vote is to formalize the CGWG’s role in facilitating RFPs via a community-driven process.

The Need for a Formal RFP Framework

When multiple teams or vendors propose services with overlapping scopes, it can be challenging for delegates to make informed choices if proposals are presented at different times or with varying formats. Without a unified process, the DAO risks fragmented decision-making, “apples-to-oranges” comparisons, and potential wasted effort on conflicting initiatives. Recent examples have highlighted this challenge:

  • Staked COMP: Teams like AlphaGrowth and Gauntlet independently put forward staking frameworks, each compelling yet different. Rather than let them proceed to separate votes (which could splinter community support), an RFP process intention was introduced to synchronize debate and evaluation of all stCOMP proposals in one place. The goal here is that when the time comes, the DAO could adopt a single, robust framework with broad consensus.
    Oracle Extractable Value (OEV): Multiple oracle providers (API3, Chainlink, RedStone, etc.) began developing solutions to recapture liquidation value for Compound. Discussions were dispersed across calls and forums. We created an RFP to aggregate these conversations into a single forum thread and invited all vendors to submit their approach under the same criteria. By doing so, the DAO can clearly compare trade-offs in latency, decentralization, revenue share, and choose one or multiple providers that best meet Compound’s needs.

  • Governance Voting Interface Provider: Compound’s current primary governance UI (Tally) required renewed funding, and alternative providers expressed interest. Rather than having multiple vendors go through independent votes, the CGWG coordinated a VSP RFP at the community’s behest. This gave delegates optionality to consider other platforms side-by-side with Tally. The RFP explicitly built in a “status quo” option as well, so delegates can vote to keep an adjusted existing setup if none of the new proposals were superior.

These cases demonstrate the value of an RFP approach: it creates an “apples-to-apples” comparison of proposals, standardizes the information provided, and lets the DAO make a single coherent decision.

Goal of this Proposal

Our goal is to formally allow the CGWG to host and facilitate RFP processes for Compound DAO governance matters, under clear community oversight. By doing so, we aim to:

  • Enable Fair Comparisons: Provide a structured framework where competing teams/vendors present their proposals with uniform criteria and scope, making it easier for delegates to evaluate options on merit.
  • Improve Decision Quality: Avoid rushed or piecemeal decisions by aggregating alternatives in one process. This helps the DAO select the best solution (or combination of solutions) with full information, rather than whichever proposal happens to be voted on first.
  • Maintain Objectivity and Neutrality: The CGWG, as a neutral facilitator, will ensure each RFP is run in a transparent and unbiased manner. All interested parties get equal opportunity to present their case, and evaluation criteria are pre-defined and public.
  • Save Time and Reduce Governance Fatigue: Rather than handling multiple overlapping proposals and votes, a single RFP process with one ultimate decision point streamlines governance. This reduces the burden on delegates to track several similar proposals and prevents “vote splitting” scenarios.
  • Adapt to Each Situation: Recognize that not every procurement or initiative will need an RFP, and that each situation will be different.

Proposed RFP Process Outline

If this mandate is approved, the CGWG will follow a standardized yet flexible process for future governance RFPs. While details may be tailored to each situation, the general framework would be:

  1. Problem Definition & Delegate Input: In a scenario where multiple solutions or providers are vying to address a DAO need, the CGWG will discuss with the community and delegates to confirm an RFP is the right approach.

  2. RFP Publication: CGWG publishes a formal RFP post on the forum, clearly labeled as such. This post will include:

    • Motivation/Background: Why the RFP is being issued and what problem we aim to solve, with context for vendors
    • Scope & Requirements: Exactly what the DAO is looking for. This section will list the deliverables or services expected, any technical or economic parameters, and the timeframe/term of the engagement.
    • Timeline & Milestones: Deadlines for proposal submissions.
    • Required Response Template: A standardized questionnaire that all proposing teams should answer to ensure comparability. This typically covers key areas such as:
      • Technical Approach & Architecture
      • Implementation Plan / Integration details
      • Security considerations (audits, risks)
      • Economic model (costs, fee structure, any revenue share)
      • Team background and experience
      • KPIs & success metrics
      • Budget and payment structure

    Teams will be asked to follow this template in their replies. Past RFPs have successfully used this approach to standardize proposals.

  3. Submission Window: Interested teams/vendors submit their proposals by replying to the RFP forum post within the given timeframe.

  4. Review and Due Diligence: Once the submission period ends, the CGWG will compile the proposals and coordinate any additional review needed. In previous RFPs, we have engaged domain experts like Woof and OZ to provide independent analysis of each proposal’s risks and feasibility.

  5. Community Q&A (if needed): Depending on the complexity, we may host community calls or ask each team to present their proposal to the community.

  6. Snapshot Vote – Selection: After vetting and discussion, the CGWG will initiate a Snapshot vote for the RFP decision. The Snapshot will present the community with the list of qualified proposals side by side in a logical manner.

  7. On-Chain Execution: Following a successful Snapshot, the CGWG will help steward the result to an on-chain governance proposal following the results of the snapshot.

  8. Oversight & Accountability: The CGWG will help act as an accountability body when needed to monitor the implementation of the winning proposal(s).

It’s important to note that while this outline provides structure, each RFP will be tailored to its use case. The CGWG will apply the above framework with good judgment, ensuring we balance thoroughness with efficiency.

Coordination with Foundation (& Future Entities)

This vote does not make the CGWG the sole team authorized to host governance RFPs on behalf of the DAO in the future. Simply, it allows the CGWG to formalize the prior RFPs and help on future initiatives when relevant, as well as establish a proper RFP process for the DAO going forward.

If future entities such as the Foundation want to host RFPs as well, we will work closely with them if needed to present the best options to the DAO. Again, the CGWG is not made exclusive in facilitating RFPs but is formally empowered to operate this process for any DAO-aligned need when relevant.

Next Steps

Snapshot Authorization Vote: A snapshot vote formally authorizing the CGWG to conduct RFPs will be conducted after a RFC period.

6 Likes
2

This is exactly the kind of structured evolution Compound governance needs.

Formalizing the CGWG’s role in running RFPs isn’t just a procedural upgrade, it’s a strategic shift toward clarity, fairness, and efficiency. The examples around stCOMP, OEV, and VSP highlight how fragmented proposals can dilute impact and decision-making. Standardizing the process ensures we’re comparing ideas on equal footing, reducing governance fatigue, and building true consensus.

You can count me in.

1 Like
3

The vote is now live on Snapshot here: Snapshot

Please take a moment and vote!

4

I support this initiative as part of this pivotal period of reestablishment of structure and viability (along with the creation of the Foundation) within the Compound DAO. This seems to be a strictly net-positive request.

1 Like
5

Gauntlet has voted No.

We appreciate the work of the CGWG but find it challenging to imagine the tangible benefits of this proposal. Compound’s governance already struggles to reach decisions quickly; adding an RFP layer to an existing seven-day on-chain voting cycle delays execution speed, deepens DAO analysis paralysis, and widens the gap compared to other protocols.

Making RFPs the default for governance proposals risks fragmenting years of accumulated domain knowledge, eroding service continuity, and elevating long-term operational risk. Not every contentious proposal merits an RFP; delegates should retain the ability to evaluate and provide feedback for individual governance proposals directly.

Additionally, centralizing scope-setting, bidder vetting, and Snapshot sequencing in the CGWG duplicates the soon-to-launch Compound Foundation’s remit, blurs accountability, and inserts redundant bureaucracy without clear benefit.

1 Like
6

While it’s encouraging to see the CGWG seek formal authorization through a Snapshot vote, this proposal raises several important questions—especially in light of the upcoming launch of the Compound Foundation. I agree with Gauntlet’s concerns raised. Specifically, I have the following questions:

  1. How will responsibilities for RFPs be allocated between the CGWG and the Foundation?
    Will the CGWG defer to the Foundation in certain areas, and who holds final authority if roles overlap or disagreements arise? The current wording about collaboration in the proposal is quite vague when there should be clear responsibilities laid out in a process that empowers anyone to represent the Compound DAO in vendor discussions and assessments.

  2. Why does the Snapshot vote allow only 3–4 business days, including a weekend, and begins without prior notice? For a mandate of this scope, wouldn’t a standard 7-day voting window and advance communication be more appropriate? The RFC only lasted 5 days and received one comment. No one was told when this vote would be starting.

  3. What quorum threshold, if any, is being applied to this Snapshot vote? If there is not a quorum threshold, why not given the importance of the decision?

  4. Is this mandate intended to expire with the current CGWG term in November 2025, or continue independently?

Given that the Foundation is expected to launch on July 1st, it may be more prudent to wait and involve its leadership in co-defining a shared RFP framework from the outset. This would ensure alignment and reduce the risk of overlapping or conflicting mandates.

7

Thank you for your feedback, @Gauntlet and @cylon.

RFPs aren’t intended for use on every proposal. We solely aim to host them in the event that the community indicates enough support for running such a process.

Expending effort on soliciting strong vendors, at a reasonable price point, in the long-run strengthens Compound’s financial stance—and enables the DAO to make more informed decisions. Such processes prevent vendor lock-in and safeguard the DAO from perpetually abiding by the status quo.

Most delegates tend to agree that disparate initiatives presented on scattered forum posts results in confusion. For instance, vendors have been debating each other on the forums and on community calls regarding what the best OEV solution is, and most delegates had simply begun ignoring these debates. The closest we’ve so far gotten to instituting a potential solution is due to the active RFP. If instituted, Compound could bring in millions in revenue each year. An RFP’s goal is to aggregate proposals, thereby consolidating information. In this manner, voters have the ability to more aptly make decisions. Sometimes, delegates may vote to retain an existing service provider; other times, when vendor optionality is introduced, folks realize that it’s time for a change. RFPs are therefore about decreasing delegate fatigue.

The proposal states that the CGWG isn’t the only team that has the ability to facilitate RFPs. With the introduction of the Foundation, we will listen and heed to their opinions. Before submitting an RFP, we will ensure that the Foundation reviews our drafts. If the Foundation in the future wants to take a more central role in RFP operations and/or vendor selection, we are 100% going to collaborate. Extending authority to the CGWG is not intended to engender bloat and inefficiency. For the current RFPs that we are running—namely the ones around OEV and voting service providers—our team has had the OpenZeppelin team review the RFPs’ questions and overall order of operations. Once the Foundation is in place, we will conduct this type of review under their advisement. All this to say, we do NOT intend to centralize vendor selection—the goal is providing an unbiased framework to help the DAO make better choices.

For the voting period itself, we followed the standard timeline that prior snapshot proposals had. Regarding the RFC period, CGWG members shared this post with you 6 days prior when we first posted it—we believe your feedback on submitting this present proposal was important and wanted to respect your input. Further, all the feedback we received (privately and on the forums) prior to the snapshot vote was positive. We therefore believe the discussions were at a good spot and wanted to efficiently move forward. There are active RFPs in the pipeline, and disrupting those bodes negatively on vendors.

The intent here is to use the same quorum threshold as an on-chain vote.

This proposal is meant to fall in line with the original CGWG mandate, which ends in November. Therefore, after November, in order for us to continue assisting with RFP processes, the CGWG would have to be reelected via a governance vote.

—CGWG

1 Like
8

Do you have a response to my first and most important question?

  1. How will responsibilities for RFPs be allocated between the CGWG and the Foundation?
    Will the CGWG defer to the Foundation in certain areas, and who holds final authority if roles overlap or disagreements arise? The current wording about collaboration in the proposal is quite vague when there should be clear responsibilities laid out in a process that empowers anyone to represent the Compound DAO in vendor discussions and assessments.

The response to Gauntlet’s concerns didn’t really address the core issue around how overlap will be addressed where there are disagreements between CGWG and the Foundation. It still seems vague and makes it unclear who has final say. If CGWG plans to defer to the Foundation, why aren’t they being consulted and included in this proposal from the start?

9

We did address the Foundation concern:

It does not make sense for us to publicly disagree with the Foundation on RFPs. Such discord is disadvantageous when dealing with external vendors. Our goal is to present a unified front when dealing with vendors. Not doing so would be unprofessional. If disagreements arise, we will do our best to resolve them with the Foundation. As for who has final adjudication over RFP operational decisions, we are happy to let the Foundation take that role. As for vendor selection, we do believe it’s the most fair to present options to the DAO. At the end of the day, the priority is to serve Compound as a whole. And our existing collaboration with OZ and WOOF on the RFPs so far indicates that we respect the opinion and guidance of external council. This will be no different once the Foundation is active.

The CGWG had multiple conversation with the Foundation already while they were preparing their proposal, not directly related to the RFPs, but on working cohesively in general. We are planning on collaborating hand-in-hand with them once the proposal passes. Again, we will respect their opinions and advice on RFP matters.

2 Likes
11

The Snapshot vote has now ended, with the DAO electing to give the CGWG authority to run RFPs.

We have recently circled up with the newly established Compound Foundation regarding how to work together on RFPs going forward. As mentioned, we will continue to present different vendors to the DAO when requested by delegates, working in concert with the Foundation in an effort to solicit the most competitive deals. Post RFP and vote, the Foundation will take the lead on vendor management and oversight, with the CGWG supporting on relevant subjects and contributing community-driven neutral facilitation where helpful.

Over the next few months, our goal will be to present delegates with unbiased and comprehensive RFPs that align with the Foundation’s strategic and operational objectives. Special thanks to everyone who took the time to review our proposal, and for the feedback throughout the process. We will always be looking for ways to help smooth the governance process, and the constructive criticism is truly very appreciated.

6 Likes