[BIP-113] Adjust Balancer Snapshot for AIP-17

This BIP proposes that Balancer remove vlAURA from its Snapshot voting strategy.



  • Remove the aura-balance-of-vlaura-vebal strategy from Balancer Snapshot voting.

  • Extend all Balancer Snapshot votes by an additional 24 hours (96 hours total) to provide additional time to run a meta-snapshot. This also ensures that Balancer governance ends during the week in all timezones. Future votes will therefore start on Thursdays and end on Mondays.

AURA is ready to move forward with this process, and respectfully requests that this BIP move to Snapshot for the upcoming voting round.


Pretty straight forward request. This is really a procedural issue and should pass with little discussion I would think.


So to be clear, this is just a revote of [BIP-112] Adjust Balancer Snapshot for Aura AIP-17, and for some reason nobody is mentioning that?


Hi @BHoping ,

you mentioned

would you be so kind to expand on why we should have “little” discussion about sending to a vote the same proposal that has just been downvoted by Governance?

I’m keen to hear your thoughts.

1 Like

Andrea, stop editing my proposal. Thank you.


@Franklin fixed that for ya.

1 Like

This makes a lot sense and I think it’s fair for the long term health of the balancer ecosystem.


Similarly to last week a request has again been made to the Governance Council that this vote be run in isolation this week (all other votes put on hold). Each member has to consider this and reach their own conclusion, the results of which will be detailed in the #gov-council discord channel tomorrow as per standard operating procedure.


so the Governance council has authority to deny other valid proposals over this already voted one, just last week?

1 Like

Can you explain why this proposal, which is a revote, would receive priority over other proposal going to snapshot?

@solarcurve I look up to you as someone who is very good at applying rules and judgment evenly.

I don’t have anything against revotes (and I can save my opinions for the other thread about them), but surely we cannot pause our governance processes due to a request to revote a proposal that was already voted down, can we?

1 Like

There is precedent for holding valid proposals in favor of only voting on a single proposal if the request is made to do so and the reasons deemed justifiable by the GC. Of course there is a stipulation that the GC should block “spam” proposals so when assessing the request for a revote there has to be a good reason to expect a different outcome. In this case, Aura has signaled they will vote as a block under AIP-17 which means there is a reasonable chance for a different outcome on this revote.

Given that last week the GC assessed that voting on BIP-112 in isolation is the best path for ensuring the continuation of a fair governance process it seems also reasonable to come to the same conclusion for the re-vote. Again, each member will decide for themselves. It’s not my decision.


Guess I spoke too soon. What Aura wants, Aura gets?

It boils down to 2 options:

  1. we let at the time of writing run a dozen votes, many of which could be double voted on by Aura, leading to even more chaos and outcry by the community
  2. let BIP-112 revote so that Aura can fix its double voting how it was supposed to.

I clearly see option 2 as the more reasonable and fair path also for the upcoming BiPs


What gives it priority over BIP-[XXX] Aura Multisig Blacklisting for Governance?

1 Like

The issue with voting on that in isolation is Aura will defeat it. Then we face a third week of voting in isolation on the BIP-112 revote. However, it is fair to say if BIP-112 revote is defeated we might face a third week of voting in isolation on the proposal you cite. Currently it seems like Aura can win any vote while double voting remains in effect so the chosen path is the quickest to returning governance to normal.

The proposal to blacklist Aura’s multisig will have its day in front of voters. There is no attempt to block that from going to a vote. The main goal here is to minimize the amount of votes subject to double voting. Perhaps some want to see Balancer’s governance process damaged as much as possible but at least for my part in the GC I will do what I can to protect the process and minimize the damage caused by recent events. I wish we weren’t in this situation but alas.


The narrative of Aura can double count its votes is useless because they could have always double counted their votes; why would they start doing it now? It will be an open fraud and a failure of Balancer’s governance design. Week after week, Balancer is trying to patch things that should not be patched and allow more free market and less “central bank policy/censorship’” mindset.


Here comes “fraud” again - I don’t think this word means what you think it means.

C’mon, man. Enough with that stuff. It’s just gaslighting. No one else besides Humpy or maybe Andrea is using charged terms of art like that. It’s neither accurate nor productive.


@Matt_Alfalfa_or_Span, if you use your voting power to vote twice, what’s the right word to use? Happy to use another word moving forward. Everyone is “gaslighting” in this amateurish discussion. Trying to patch things that should not be patched. People are calling Andrea/Humpy unethical persons because they are playing what veBAL is supposed to be: a battle. If Aura double-count its votes, what is it called then?

It’s the same battle, man. I think you know that. I’m not sure why you felt the need to ask.

I’m not calling anyone unethical. I’m just pointing out the circular arguments being advanced by Humpy and Andrea. Humpy and Andrea are the causes of, and also could have been, and still could be, the solutions to the very same problem they’re complaining about that you’re calling “fraud”.

So let’s play this out a bit. If double-voting in this situation is “fraud,” tell me, sir, what responsibility do Humpy and Andrea have in relation to any alleged “fraud” when they could have, last week, prevented the possibility of the “fraud” from occurring but voluntarily chose not to because they don’t like the result of AIP-17?


AIP-17 solves the double-counted vote as a mere side effect consequence of the proposal. It’s not the core of it. The proposal is more about giving AURA the “winner takes all” approach, which I’m also against it; unless we have more time to discuss this idea and set some rules for all veBAL wrappers, not exclusively for Aura/Tetu or SD. It is surprising that I have to explain the obvious here. Balancer community is trying to show that AIP-17 was all about preventing double counting votes, which in reality is more about giving AURA more voting power (due to the lower voter participation on the Aura side).