Thanks for the detailed feedback! There’s some good stuff here.
Not directly, but one of the only two people during RFC to comment is on the multi-sig. We fully agree they should be consulted. Much of the proposal is structured to be simple to administer, and make as light a burden on the multi-sig signers as possible.
True. However, our experience with TWAPs is that someone has to do that counting, and then do it in a way that’s very transparent and easy for others to verify. Also, given the very low liquidity of HOP (price impact begins at 1000 USDC > HOP on 1inch at the moment), TWAP may not be appropriate given the ease with which it could be manipulated.
Review should at a minimum occur when delegates and large HOP holders decide to vote. Hop governance is not currently drowning in proposals, but should the pendulum swing towards an overactive governance, then certainly this program should be revisited. We would prefer to address that problem when/if it presents itself. Realistically, this program only applies to proposals that do not request funds from the protocol, so it should hopefully target more “nuts and bolts” types of proposals like the one @francom is beginning to work on here.
If this proposal fails, perhaps a sunsetting date could be attached to force a re-evaluation. It could also be amended (should it pass) to insert such a clause if this was a common concern.
100% agree. The question is how do you distinguish between the two without a centralizing group or devolving into informal “I know it when I see it” situations. If you have an idea how to do this simply, we would happily collaborate to revise this proposal (if it fails) or amend it (if it passes).
Thank you again for the detailed comments. You brought up some really great points! Given your keen eye for detail, we also would be interested in your input on some upcoming proposals if you feel you have the time (DM or find us on Discord if so, just so this thread doesn’t get off track).