In order to improve accountability for the DeFi Education Fund, we have designed a contract that imposes a spend limit on the amount of UNI and USDC that can be withdrawn. The contract also has the ability to recall funds back to the Uniswap timelock contract at any time.
Code can be found here: https://github.com/uclablockchain/uniswap-spend-limit/blob/main/UniswapSpendLimit.sol (Please note that this contract has not been thoroughly tested, so be careful. It is not on mainnet yet for this reason.)
The idea behind this contract is to limit the amount of money the fund can use to a set amount temporarily. If more money is needed, a proposal could be created that would call the increaseSpendLimit function to increase the amount of money that could be withdrawn. Finally, if Uniswap Governance decides that the money isn't being spent well, the funds could be recalled by calling the recallFunds method.
There is obviously no way to force the funds to be sent to this address if this proposal passes, but we hope that the signers are nice enough (and care about transparency enough) to send the funds to the contract.
In order to improve accountability for the DeFi Education Fund, we have designed a contract that imposes a spend limit on the amount of UNI and USDC that can be withdrawn. The contract also has the ability to recall funds back to the Uniswap timelock contract at any time.
Code can be found here: https://github.com/uclablockchain/uniswap-spend-limit/blob/main/UniswapSpendLimit.sol (Please note that this contract has not been thoroughly tested, so be careful. It is not on mainnet yet for this reason.)
The idea behind this contract is to limit the amount of money the fund can use to a set amount temporarily. If more money is needed, a proposal could be created that would call the increaseSpendLimit function to increase the amount of money that could be withdrawn. Finally, if Uniswap Governance decides that the money isn't being spent well, the funds could be recalled by calling the recallFunds method.
There is obviously no way to force the funds to be sent to this address if this proposal passes, but we hope that the signers are nice enough (and care about transparency enough) to send the funds to the contract.
No, its clear they are acting in bad faith. If they want to restore trust they can put it in a Escrow contract. Their reputation is already in shambles and users will want a full audit of all money spent.
No, its clear they are acting in bad faith. If they want to restore trust they can put it in a Escrow contract. Their reputation is already in shambles and users will want a full audit of all money spent.
Kleros escrow contract, all of it. That way we can pull the UNI and the money back if we need to.
Kleros escrow contract, all of it. That way we can pull the UNI and the money back if we need to.
This blog post was published earlier today, which mentions using Failsafe for the DEF funds: https://medium.com/@defieducationfund/defi-education-fund-update-e665cee774e9
This blog post was published earlier today, which mentions using Failsafe for the DEF funds: https://medium.com/@defieducationfund/defi-education-fund-update-e665cee774e9
hey nice work with the contract,
but I don't think this is a good idea, for the following reasons:
hey nice work with the contract,
but I don't think this is a good idea, for the following reasons:
Money have already been given out, so if do have concerns or potential lack of trust, after the immediate liquidation of half of the amount (even thou in one of the comments in their proposals they suggested doing so in a period of 4-5 years or only needing around $150k for annual work for entire committee), we shouldn't be focusing or trying to control someone else money, but instead a valid solution and a reaction going forward would and should be raising the bar for approving such applications, i.e clear outline plan for the funds, before even considering, or we don't won't to base it on trust, which is completely normal, we could use enforcing mechanisms like you are suggesting, but this should be done prior to, not in retrospect
I still think we should keep an eye on the fund balances, carefully monitor, ask for full transparency and try to get answers for some of the community questions, maybe first we should try to compile all the questions across the hodlers and ask edu committee to resolve them
P.S I'm not a big fan of bureaucracy as I think product should be the main focus, but if community feels misled or miscommunicated, maybe some mechanism you suggesting restricting capital moves could indeed be useful. Also we shouldn't forget an option to just sell if we feel that DAO interests have significantly diverged from ours, I don't believe it is the case yet.
delegate to wijuwiju.eth
hey nice work with the contract,
but I don't think this is a good idea, for the following reasons:
hey nice work with the contract,
but I don't think this is a good idea, for the following reasons:
Money have already been given out, so if do have concerns or potential lack of trust, after the immediate liquidation of half of the amount (even thou in one of the comments in their proposals they suggested doing so in a period of 4-5 years or only needing around $150k for annual work for entire committee), we shouldn't be focusing or trying to control someone else money, but instead a valid solution and a reaction going forward would and should be raising the bar for approving such applications, i.e clear outline plan for the funds, before even considering, or we don't won't to base it on trust, which is completely normal, we could use enforcing mechanisms like you are suggesting, but this should be done prior to, not in retrospect
I still think we should keep an eye on the fund balances, carefully monitor, ask for full transparency and try to get answers for some of the community questions, maybe first we should try to compile all the questions across the hodlers and ask edu committee to resolve them
P.S I'm not a big fan of bureaucracy as I think product should be the main focus, but if community feels misled or miscommunicated, maybe some mechanism you suggesting restricting capital moves could indeed be useful. Also we shouldn't forget an option to just sell if we feel that DAO interests have significantly diverged from ours, I don't believe it is the case yet.
delegate to wijuwiju.eth
