[RFC] Community Multisig Operations for the Hop DAO

🐰Hop Ecosystem
1

Authors: @Kene_StableNode, @Bobbay_StableLab & @fourpoops
Contributors: N/A
Status: RFC
Date Posted: 2023-01-31

References

How Should HOP compensate Multi-Sig Signers

Simple Summary

This is a request for comment to finalize the discussion of Hop’s Multi-Sig Operations. This a follow-up proposal to the “Temperature Check - How should HOP compensate Multi-Sig Signers” proposal, which has already been passed off-chain and on-chain by the community.

Abstract

This proposal outlines the process for nomination, election, and compensation of multisig signers for the Hop DAO Community Multisig. The proposal aims to define the multisig’s goals and clarify the process for joining and participating in the Hop DAO multisig.

Nomination and Election

Every six months, there will be a nomination process and subsequent election to replace the five Hop DAO Community Multisig signers. Stats should be kept about the incumbent signer’s number and speed of signatures in the 6-month period and displayed during elections. A forum post should be started where applicants indicate their interest in the role through a formal application stating:

  • Who they are
  • Outlining their track record of reliability in previous roles
  • How they contribute to the Hop Ecosystem

The nomination process should run for seven days with question and answer, after which a subsequent snapshot election will be held; after the election, the top 5 applicants will become the new Hop Multi-Sig Signers.

Responsibilities

The Community Multisig exists for the Hop DAO to transact faster and with more flexibility than can the full governance timelock. However, the multisig’s purpose should be to reduce its role in the DAO as much as possible.

  • Each signer will be responsible for verifying transactions, checking merkle roots, and signing off on transactions as necessary.
  • The signers will work together to manage the nomination and election process, with each signer taking on specific tasks to ensure that the process runs smoothly.
  • The signers will also work together to manage the day-to-day operations of the multisig, including responding to questions from the community and ensuring that transactions are executed in a timely and efficient manner.

Compensation:

Salary: As an amendment to HIP-12, Multi-Sig Signer compensation will be $2,250 twice a year for = $4,500 * 4 = $18,000

Bringing the total cost to = $18,000

Gas Rebates: As ETH is spent to execute multisig transactions, we propose that each signer is reimbursed for the exact amount of gas spent during the 6-month term. To be eligible for a rebate, we propose that signers use a Google Sheet template to track gas costs. A dune dashboard or other data query can replace this.

1 Like
2

when people are running do they just then need to specify whether they want to be “lead” or not? I guess that does complicate this a bit

3

The signers can appoint a lead signer amongst themselves.

4

what if nobody wants to do it?

5

this is an open question.

the only reason i am the “lead” signer right now is because i defaulted into that position by taking on the functions necessary to do the job and make sure the MS functions. there is no communication between the signers, really. imo the MS channel in discord, which is currently private, should be opened up for all to see, because i think this would relieve some of the ambiguity the community seems to have about how things are run.

if the new MS is elected on the basis of “having” to speak to each other in order to facilitate functions and to elect a “lead”, then i think things would be better off. that needs to be mandated, though, so it’s good to think about now.

6

given the details of this proposal, would you run as lead signer during an election?

7

not with the compensation allocations the way they are now.

8

@dybsy do you think an annual salary of $7,000 for the lead signer, instead of $6,000 would be sufficient to cover the responsibilities of this role?

9

it’s not about the dollar value (which i have maintained is low, anyway). it’s about the allocation. the responsibilities on the ‘lead’ are already disproportionate to the allocation (currently 2:1). there is now discussion about adding more responsibilities to the lead. if i ran in an election to the MS, i would be targeting a non-lead signer position for this reason.

1 Like
10

this is my thought as well, it’s more about the allocation. of course, this was partly my point for not wanting to decide on compensation for MS until the roles were/are clearly defined, but here we are. I think we need to make sure that before we put this proposal to a vote that we’d actually have competent people wanting to run for lead multisig

11

This is what I propose; the Lead Multi-Sig Signer would be the person with the highest votes during the election. And then, the individual with the second highest votes would be responsible for setting up the subsequent nomination and election process.

@dybsy

12

what if someone wants to run but does not want to be lead?

1 Like
13

This can be partially addressed in two ways. First, we could create a sort of auction whereby the salary increases (up to some cap) until someone nominates themself for the role. Second, we can restructure the role to be less demanding and spread tasks more evenly across signers, going to the point @dybsy made.

1 Like
14

Number two (aside from being my favorite number) seems to be the more concise route here and more “decentralized” in some sense. It gives the opportunity for more people to contribute at a higher level. The equivalent total compensation here would be $2,250 twice a year for = $4,500 * 4 = $18,000 annual total cost.

Amended responsibilities:

  • Each signer will be responsible for verifying transactions, checking merkle roots, and signing off on transactions as necessary.
  • The signers will work together to manage the nomination and election process, with each signer taking on specific tasks to ensure that the process runs smoothly.
  • The signers will also work together to manage the day-to-day operations of the multisig, including responding to questions from the community and ensuring that transactions are executed in a timely and efficient manner.
15

i think this is fine. Presumably those who apply for the job with this spec will do those things.

16

I agree with these amended responsibilties, the lead signer distinction created more complexity than was needed, since we have reached consensus here, I will edit the proposal to contain the amended responsibilities and compensation.

2 Likes
17

Lol love you for that. I completely agree though and also think that more people is broadly better for decentralization.

18

This proposal has now been edited in line with the feedback gathered from this thread.

2 Likes
19

This is now up for a vote as a snapshot-only proposal, HIP-20:

The final edit to this RFC is included on snapshot to support gas rebates for all Hop multisigs, like the Grants multisig. This seems more like standard procedure so that we incentivize participation and efficiency for all multisig transactions/executions. Still, only the core “Community Multisig” will be receiving compensation. Here is the new language being added to this proposal:

We further propose that gas rebates (but not full compensation), where reasonable, are extended to all Hop related multisigs (e.g. Grants Program multisig).

20

I broadly agree with this entire proposal and like that it moves away from a lead signer model. My only suggestion would be that it take more steps to “reduce [the multisig’s] role in the DAO as much as possible.” Ultimately the biggest fear for any decentralized governance structure is that it stops being decentralized. What that looks like in this case is the same 5 people repeatedly running and winning on a platform of past experience and community inertia, never leaving room for new participants to get involved.

A few concrete ways of addressing this would be a form of quadratic voting, term limits, and not having the multisig run its own election.

  • Quadratic voting, with some penalty for each term previously served – or number of past consecutive terms – seems like the most elegant solution and would slowly ensure qualified, new candidates can participate. However, it would also be the most difficult to implement.
  • Term limits are the simpler alternative. I would propose no more than two consecutive terms to leave space for new entrants, while leaving the door open for qualified former signers to return.
  • Lastly, while it seems obvious to not be a pressing concern given the trustworthiness of current community members, having multisig signers with no term limits running their own elections does raise a potential conflict of interest. I propose a uniform structure for elections such that no one is needed to facilitate the process, or the creation of a separate elections committee for essential roles that cannot be eliminated.