[RFC] Refill The HOP Community Multisig with Funds from the HOP DAO

The HOP Community Multisig has efficiently distributed payments for the HOP DAO since its inception. These distributions have been made to delegates, multisig signers, bonders, and AMM reward contracts (in the form of liquidity incentives).

The multisig initially received 20,000,000 HOP during the creation of the tokens and many of these have been distributed into circulation. The complete breakdown of the distributions to date are below:

Date Distribution Amount Distribution Type Tx Hash
Oct 24, 2022 5,060,000 AMM, Bonders (retroactive) Etherscan
Nov 23, 2022 2,900,000 AMM, Bonders Etherscan
Dec 01, 2022 21,785.38 Delegates Etherscan
Dec 21, 2022 2,900,000 AMM, Bonders Etherscan
Jan 17, 2023 2,960,812.88 AMM, Bonders, Delegates, Multisig Signers (retroactive) Etherscan

The HOP Community Multisig now has 6,157,401.72 HOP tokens available, or about 2 months of supply. At the current run rate, approximately 2,941,299.13 HOP is distributed each month, which equates to approximately 3.53% of the total HOP supply each year.

This RFC hopes to achieve consensus that the HOP Community Multisig should be refilled at this time in order to continue efficient distributions from the HOP DAO into the hands of HOP stakeholders.


If consensus is achieved, this proposal will send 11,765,196.52 HOP from the HOP DAO to the HOP Community Multisig. This number represents roughly 4 months of distribution and approximately 1.16% of the total HOP supply, capping the liabilities of the HOP Community Multisig.

Per HIP-15, this distribution, as well as future distributions to refill the multisig, will target approximately 4 months worth of DAO expenses, refilled via on-chain governance vote every other month.

The calculation of 11,765,196.52 HOP was achieved by looking at the cumulative distribution of the prior two months and using that to approximate the next 4 months’ expenses. Any major, forward-looking changes, such as newly accepted & forthcoming distributions or the ending of incentive programs, should be taken into consideration when calculating this number for future refills.

Should the RFC be widely accepted, a delegate will conduct a temperature check on Snapshot and a subsequent on-chain proposal. If there are no material changes to the structure, future refills of this nature will bypass an RFC and proceed directly to a Snapshot vote.


I support this proposal, and it’s also in line with what we approved in HIP-15, that stated: “The Community Multisig should hold approximately 4 months of expenses, refilled via on-chain governance vote every other month”.

This proposal was moved to Snapshot: [RFC] Refill The HOP Community Multisig with Funds from the HOP DAO

Note for all delegates: I apologize since I made a mistake in the Snapshot title. Title should read instead:

[HIP-18] Refill The HOP Community Multisig with Funds from the HOP DAO


Keeping sufficient operating expenses liquid is important, and I agree with Olimpio.

Voted yes. This funding represents reasonable expenditure on essential services required to maintain decentralized and high-quality governance and operations.

This is pretty much a no-brainer. Community multisig shoudl have operating expenses for 4 months so this needs to be done.

Voted yes on this one, looks like I didn’t comment yet. Necessary to keep the DAO running.

I am posting here to say that I also voted yes on the continuation of this one here: Snapshot

Yes, same. I do think each snapshot should have its own corresponding forum thread. Or at least it should be indicated in this thread too if it’s always just for refilling the multisig.

or as I said in the other thread let’s just forego the reporting part as it makes no sense and just adds unnecessary beauraucracy

1 Like

i think the reporting part is meant to offer accountability to those who have delegated. without having a reporting structure, there is no other method in place to report back to your constituency about what you have done. including this facet of accountability in compensation for delegates should be encouraging taking individual steps to be held accountable and discouraging rubber stamp voting.

yes but not every decision requires such accoutnability. In fact very very few do.

Just saying: “I voted yes because this makes sense” is just ruber stamping and meaningless.

What’s more the accountability between delegate and delegators is their own problem and is not something to standardize. Each delegate knows where their delegators come from and what is the best channel to reach them if needed. (twitter, dicord, forum etc).

Case in point … I am forced to post here to say I voted yes here on Snapshot just for “accountability” purposes … since there is no other forum topic.


I think we can all agree this one doesn’t need comments anymore…unless someone is voting against

1 Like

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of kaereste and Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

We’ll be voting in favor of the proposal, and we also agree with @fourpoops and @lefterisjp that delegates should only post their rationale if they’re voting against the recurring refill of the community multisig.

Voted “For” in proposal (3)

Posted this last one on snapshot and voted for it.

Please participate if possible in this cycle of the Hop Community Multisig refill vote on Tally that expires tomorrow. @fourpoops @lefterisjp @kaereste @Sinkas @rxpwnz @Bob-Rossi @elchungus @takeabreath @thegreg.eth @david-mihal and any other delegates that i missed