COMP community governance is not well organized. Multi-billion dollar protocols should operate better than this. While it seems like more individuals have been stepping up lately, there are bigger steps we can & need to take.
I wrote this up and am curious what others think. This is my articulation of the issues and possible solutions (and some case studies), but with ideas & feedback from: Getty Hill, arr00, Larry Sukernik, Mike Reinhart, the Polychain team, Robert Leshner, and others community members. Hopefully this discussion will help lead to some proposals/action.
See full write up here: COMP Gov Concerns (July 2021) - Google Docs
TLDR. . .
- The Compound community is not aligned around a clear roadmap or long-term vision
- Contributors aren’t properly empowered to contribute, making it difficult to get anything done
- The governance process lacks structure and is difficult to navigate
- Resources are very disorganized; we rely on part-time contributors to independently step up to solve core issues
- The current ‘contributor experience’ is poor, hindering COMPs ability to recruit & retain contributors
- Token holders aren’t well-positioned to judge the security of proposals; security & testing standards/support don’t really exist
Possible next steps
- Hire governance facilitator
- Explicitly centralize development of COMP’s long-term strategy
- Define standards for asset additions, parameter logic, proposal process, and security/testing
- Build out a team—separate from Compound Labs—to serve community-driven initiatives (or hire dev shops to fill the gap)
- Create technical review committee or “Risk DAO”