For reference, here’s the current overview of our governance process: https://docs.balancer.fi/ecosystem/governance/governance-process In an effort to further decentralize, Balancer Labs is stepping away from the process and handing it over to the community. There’s three elements to the handoff:
Moving snapshot admin to a community representative
Ceding control of the snapshot ENS
Passing the burden of determining when soft consensus has been reached
I will present my suggestions for how the community moves forward on this. My goal is to start a dialogue so please do not hesitate to question anything and everything or offer up alternative ideas.
I have experience managing snapshot admin, so I humbly put myself forward as a volunteer to take the admin. I will remove the existing addresses capable of putting a proposal to snapshot and replace them with the addresses of the five full time Ballers - me, bakamoto, andrea, xeonus, and Mike B.
I suggest setting the governance multisig as controller of the ENS. The only function they will perform is changing the admin, which should not happen often if ever. This multisig contains many high profile and trusted names in the ethereum community and is the safest place to put the ENS in my opinion.
I propose creating a “gov council” of the five full time Ballers mentioned above. A majority vote in favor would be required before a proposal can be posted to snapshot. I can create a discord channel that is public read-only where the five of us will discuss if a proposal has reached soft consensus. It is extremely important to understand that it is not a question of if any of the five personally are in favor of a proposal, but that the community has reached a soft consensus to proceed. For example, if I personally oppose something but it is clear from forum discussion that most people are in favor, I would be obligated to vote in favor of the proposal going to snapshot.
Additionally, I suggest adding a requirement that each proposal include a forum poll as another signaling device we can use. It is gameable of course, but still a valuable input to have I think.
Edit: For a snapshot proposal to be considered valid & binding, it must be open for voting for at least three full days and announcements of the vote must be posted to the official @BalancerLabs Twitter account AND in the #announcements channel of Balancer’s discord. These announcements must be made with no less than 24 hours remaining in the vote.
We can take a week or two to discuss this, then I suggest we take our finalized proposal to snapshot.
However, I do wonder if there is a way to include a mechanism for veto power (via a community vote or in some other way) in either direction in the scenario there is clear consensus to move (or not move) a vote to snapshot, but the bad actors move in the opposite direction.
I do not think that would happen now with this fine and upstanding group of Ballers, however who knows what can transpire in the future.
I understand your desire to avoid bad actors or malicious activity @zekraken. Is it possible that if that were the case a pause could be implemented and the multi-sig could intervene? It does seem more like an edge-case scenario – potentially something that could be created by the founding governance council to protect from attacks?
If we’re establishing a “gov council” can I humbly request to call them the Balancer Buddahs? Inspired by @solarcurve’s comment:
“It is extremely important to understand that it is not a question of if any of the five personally are in favor of a proposal, but that the community has reached a soft consensus to proceed.”
Just Now I have taken the liberty to join Balancer Forum. I hope to give positive feedback and suggestions. I think @DavisRamsey Solarcurve has only the best intentions for Balancer community and the Governance. Therefore he has my support. Thanks community.
Regarding @zekraken’s comment, I really don’t think this is necessary. Let’s go through the two different attack scenarios:
bad actors push a vote to snapshot that didn’t have consensus: this is essentially spam and the veto power will be exerted by BAL token holders through the vote. As long as the process includes a minimum duration (IMO at least 3 full days) and propper communication (announcements on Twitter and discord prior to the vote) then this scenario should not be a problem. @solarcurve I think this proposal has to add these details to be well defined.
bad actors censor and don’t push to snapshot a vote that clearly everyone supports: this is the case where there should be coordination with the multisig members and the community to replace the snapshot admin. So in this case the veto power comes from the community through the multisig.
Even though I don’t see either of these happening (at least with this council) I think we are prepared to tackle them.
PS: love @kstone’s suggestion of calling them Balancer Buddhas =)
We can say each vote should last three days. That’s already the standard I’ve been using. I don’t think we can hardcode a three day requirement into snapshot though. So in the case of #1 with a rogue actor (in practice, one of the five full time Ballers) they can configure the vote however they want. Gov Bot will tweet and put a message in #governance but that’s the only automated warning system we have atm.
#2, you’re right - simple enough. gov multisig replaces the admin.
There were concerns raised by members of the community over using the name “Buddhas” because it could be perceived as insensitive. Thus, I opted to simply use “Gov Council”
I’m not saying we should hard-code the 3-day minimum duration on snapshot, I’m saying that in order for the vote to be considered valid that requirement should be met.
The multisig signers should have a very succinct list of such requirements to look at (ideally in the form of an approved snapshot vote itself that describes the new voting process) before they execute what’s been approved on any snapshot vote.