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.


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


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


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.


Your protocol, your call.




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