The Ethereum Multi-Sig has been open for 5 months while the Optimism Multi-Sig has been running for 4 months.
Could you expand more on what you mean by this statement?
There has been no explicit provision for gas rebates, I hoped to keep the budget for this as lean as possible, therefore it is expected that signers would replenish the ETH spent on gas with their compensation.
Thank you for the reply and I understand and respect your decision, your feedback has also been noted.
I understand and respect your decision, your feedback has also been noted.
Ah yes. So what I mean is that if you already set out a set of rules for payments per month for the multisig, I would expect any retroactive payments to just follow those rules backwards too.
There has been no explicit provision for gas rebates, I hoped to keep the budget for this as lean as possible, therefore it is expected that signers would replenish the ETH spent on gas with their compensation.
I get it. I think that gas rebates would be absolutely stellar (as someone who also has been in other multisigs) and I would love to vote for it. Having gas rebates eat on the compensation is unfair and sort of shoots oneself in the foot so to say.
It creates incentives for signers to try and save as much gas as possible which may end up slowing down transactions. They should not have to have smaller compensation just because the DAO needs 3-4t transactions during congested times. Does my reasoning make sense?
In general I am in favor of paying multisig signers. Would just like to figure out the details.
I am going to vote abstain since there has been no response and my whole family and I are pretty sick so I may be unable to check again before the deadline.
I would be open to changing to YES due to what I stated in the above post but need my questions addressed.
I apologize for the late reply.
I see your point and I agree, the primary purpose of this proposal is to justify a basis for their payment in the first place, if this vote passes I will be sure to make sure that the rules for retroactive payments and subsea payments are identical.
I also see the point you made in relation to gas rebates, I will be sure to see that implemented subsequently.
All right thanks. So after your post and the chat we had in discord I am changing my vote to yes.
I do want multisig signers to get compensated. I just want the terms to be clear and fair both for past and present and also consider gas rebates.
Since, from what I understand after our chat, this is not the vote that will decide on the specifics, but just a vote about whether to do it or not I am voting yes.
This has passed with 94% approval, and is eligible to be pushed to an on-chain vote. Thank you to everyone who participated.
Is this actually the case? If there are no specifics being decided, what is the point of this proposal? As far as I can understand there are quite some specifics being decided, but not enough in my opinion and they havenât been sufficiently discussed. Related again to my concerns regarding this proposal, if no specifics are being decided in this then why donât we put together a more comprehensive proposal including gas rebates, term limits, voting, etc. to fully govern the multisig?
This has moved to an on-chain vote as HIP 12. If you hold HOP, please consider expressing your opinion by voting.
I downvoted this on-chain vote since as far as I have been lead to understand from my conversations with @Kene_StableLab this was just a temp check vote to see if we should compensate multisig signers.
It was not supposed to proceed for an on-chain vote and be executed as is.
As I said I agree with compensating multisig signers. But there is open questions as to how this should be done, gas rebates, retro-payments being equal or at least close to future compensation etc.
The primary purpose of HIP 12 was to address the fundamental question of whether we should compensate Multi-Sig Signers in the first place.
As I told you, I planned to follow up with another proposal which would address the there considerations and operational details that need to be ironed out, the purpose of this proposal was to start up the conversation and then follow up with a subsequent proposal that irons out the rest of the details such as:
Elections and Term Limits
Gas Rebates
Possible Vesting of Tokens etc.
It is my intention to finalize this with an On-Chain vote and move onto a discussion that solely discusses the details that have not reached consensus.
I intended to follow up this temp check with another proposal to figure out considerations such as term limits, gas rebates and elections.
I do not intend for this to be the final vote, but according to the Hop Governance Process, every vote must go to an on-chain vote. This is problematic in relation to temp-checks, but @fourpoops just put this forum post to discuss the governance process, the goal of the multi-sig compensation proposal was to start the conversation around multi-sig comp, and I am working on a follow-up proposal to address all the considerations that would have convoluted the initial discussion.
As discussed in discord already and also pointed out already here:
I also agree we should not let procedural details slow us down and would suggest to simply proceed with the ironed out multisig proposal that @Kene_StableLab wants to do and discuss and once decided execute.
HIP 12: Multisig Signer Compensation has passed with 66.78% support from 67 voting addresses. Thank you to everyone who voted.
I voted yes on this proposal. Although I agree that this proposal needs further work on the details, I prioritized multi-signers being compensated as soon as possible, taking into consideration their past work and hours put in. Moving forward, I donât agree with having an on-chain vote for a temp check, but given the circumstances I believe that the priority is moving forward, not stalling.
The initial distribution has been calculated and will be distributed next week with the other distributions (HIP-7, HIP-4, and the non-HIP-labeled SNX incentive proposal).
As discussed on the community call, the price for the HOP token will be a 6 month TWAP. For the time period from July 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, the TWAP price for HOP was $0.11799821319117894. The script to perform the calculation can be found here.
This price translates to the following token amounts:
The total HOP distributed will be 50,848.22759374.
The HIP-20 distribution for the period of January 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023 has been calculated with the following parameters:
The distribution will be made with the next reward cycle on August 2, 2023.