Whitelist of addresses that can create proposals

This prop should be ready to submit on-chain early next week.

To simplify and reduce bias in the decision process, here’s a possible framework for how the multisig would manage the whitelist:

  • Any contributor who wishes to submit a proposal that has gone through the full off-chain governance process (community feedback, temperature checking, testing & peer review — to be more defined later) should be whitelisted for a short period of time (1 week) to submit a single proposal.
  • Active contributors — defined as those who have been a core contributor on at least 2 successful proposals OR those who are salaried by the DAO — may be whitelisted for an extended period of time.
  • Extended whitelisting will start at 3 months. Upon completion of this period, if the contributor has upheld community governance standards and continues to be an active contributor, they may have their whitelisting renewed for 6 months, and subsequently 12 months (max term) at the discretion of the multisig.
  • If a whitelisted contributor fails to uphold community governance standards, this contributor should be removed from the whitelist.

The community multisig is welcome to flex/update this framework as they see fit. This exact framework isn’t a fundamental part of this proposal; it’s merely meant to offer some initial guidance for the community multisig on how to use the newly granted power.

7 Likes

reviewed Add Governance Whitelist Users Feature by arr00 · Pull Request #149 · compound-finance/compound-protocol · GitHub, no obvious bugs stuck out to me, seems to do what it says.

id personally vote yes

4 Likes

I’ve added post deploy and post propose simulations which sanity check the proposal. Everything checks out.

3 Likes

This thread highlights some potential risks not clearly outlined in this proposal. It’s worth having a look.

I still feel confident that this is the right path forward, in light of these long-tail risks. However, if others feel differently, I just want to highlight the possible steps we could take to alleviate these concerns.

  1. Have a vote to remove the whitelist functionality (revert back to standard COMP gov bravo with only a 65k COMP threshold for proposals)

  2. Change the whitelist guardian to COMP governance, allowing token holders to control the whitelist

  3. Revamp and/or expand the size of the multisig to enhance it’s security

I am recommending @arr00 & @TylerEther to be added to the whitelist. @arr00 is a critical community member and has made significant contributions to the protocol and the entire DeFi ecosystem. @TylerEther is one of the few people to add an asset (LINK) to the protocol and is currently finalizing RFP 16 (split COMP rewards).

Both of them are “no-brainer” additions imo. I think the community multisig can add each of them; however, if people don’t like that, I will make an onchain proposal.

If someone speaks up and would rather a governance proposal add them, I’ll make it on Monday. Otherwise, the community multisig should add them on Monday.

7 Likes

Your protocol, your call.

++

(20char20char20char20char20char)

2 Likes

Governance delegate address verification:

{
  "address": "0xc8A69971DAa3C3ADd85Ab0d0AF297515769ddfFC",
  "msg": "To: Compound Community Multi-sig\nDate: Monday, September 20, 2021\nTime: 15:08 PST\n\nThis address is controlled by TylerEther for the purpose of protocol governance.\n\nTwitter: https://twitter.com/tylerether",
  "sig": "0xd1eaeaec32cff436f30307b6557a17a6271585f0b81fa4ae60d4560a339addba4b544b4cae7f9b475890f71c53c67f8554e793f3ee73cc0aa8b58332fdfa5ff101",
  "version": "2"
}
1 Like

I’ll be using my existing governance address 0x2b384212edc04ae8bb41738d05ba20e33277bf33

1 Like