[RFC] Community Multisig Operations for the Hop DAO

[Kene_StableLab]

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

[fourpoops]

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

[max-andrew]

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.

[fourpoops]

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.

[dybsy]

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

[Kene_StableLab]

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.

[max-andrew]

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

[Kene_StableLab]

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

[fourpoops]

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).

[max-andrew]

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.

[thegreg.eth]

@dybsy

imo the MS channel in discord, which is currently private, should be opened up for all to see

or at least gated to certain roles?

It may help inform community members that are looking to get more involved, and possibly run for future MS nominations.

[fourpoops]

We discussed this a bit in a previous version of this proposal. Until we have a far more active community, I think it’s premature to impose term limits. I agree that a uniform structure for elections seems great so nobody needs to do anything, but what does that look like? A separate elections committee sounds like a lot of extra complexity.

Temperature Check - Addressing Considerations for Multi-Sig Operations

I don’t think there should be term limits as long as nominations and votes are held every 6 months. In short order, we would be running through far too many people if we imposed term limits. I don’t think there needs to be any clause for removal. Stats should be kept about each signer’s number of signatures in the 6 month period and displayed during elections. You can’t just remove someone if other signers get to signing transactions very quickly. For gas rebates, does there need to be a budge…

[max-andrew]

Definitely agree with that, the only point I’d make is that this proposal would only come in effect in a year when the community will presumably look fairly different and only requires a one term “cooling off” period.

To determine what a uniform structure would look like we’d need to figure out specifically what roles the multisig signers have in running the election which I’m still a bit unclear on.

[lefterisjp]

@Kene_StableLab

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

Question here. Am I missing something?

Why multiply by 4? The proposal mentions 5 signers.

[Kene_StableLab]

Thank you for pointing this out @lefterisjp

The proposal refers to 5 singers, which would bring the total compensation to

Salary: As an amendment to HIP-12, Multi-Sig Signer compensation will be $2,250 twice a year for = $4,500 * 5 = $22,500

Bringing the total cost to = $22,500

[lefterisjp]

All right thanks. In that case I voted yes as it’s a very balanced proposal.

[fourpoops]

This proposal has passed and an election should be held in May/June based on the guidelines in the proposal.

Based on the community call and other points, it seems like there’s an opportunity to clarify some things between now and then:

1. Term limits.
2. Who will actually be facilitating the election? For the first election it may be a bit experimental and a bootstrapped effort considering the procedures were not already in place while the current multisig members were chosen. There are also some concerns about capture of this process by the multisig and calls for independent bodies. I think that would be overkill, but worth the conversation.

Anything else?

[Kene_StableLab]

I don’t think there’s anything else.

For conducting elections, I don’t we would contract a service provider who would independently facilitate all processes likely to be captured.

[max-andrew]

Something else that might be worth clarifying for both this and the ambassador elections is what the election process looks like. Does everyone get 1 vote or 5 votes for example?

[olimpio]

I voted yes to this proposal.

As outlined in my previous comment here: Temperature Check - How should HOP compensate Multi-Sig Signers - #24 by olimpio

I also support the amendments to more evenly distribute responsibilities in the context of the lead signer discussions held.