On April 7th and 8th, scammers posted fake polls that contained malicious links in the Uniswap Snapshot space.
The UF worked with Snapshot to take down both polls and to temporarily raise the voting power threshold required to post a new proposal from 1000 to 10,000 UNI. This number was chosen without any particular rationale around whether it is appropriate from a governance perspective; it was raised simply to prevent any new malicious polls.
Though the community discussed and approved updates to the governance process earlier this year, we did not define the voting power that should be required to post a Snapshot poll.
This post serves as a call for comments and suggestions to set that level. It will be open for a week for community conversation. We’ll open a Snapshot poll next Monday (April 17) with the options discussed here and let it run for a week. Finally, we’ll update the Snapshot space’s settings with the result of that poll.
Some questions to get you thinking about what the right number might be:
On April 7th and 8th, scammers posted fake polls that contained malicious links in the Uniswap Snapshot space.
The UF worked with Snapshot to take down both polls and to temporarily raise the voting power threshold required to post a new proposal from 1000 to 10,000 UNI. This number was chosen without any particular rationale around whether it is appropriate from a governance perspective; it was raised simply to prevent any new malicious polls.
Though the community discussed and approved updates to the governance process earlier this year, we did not define the voting power that should be required to post a Snapshot poll.
This post serves as a call for comments and suggestions to set that level. It will be open for a week for community conversation. We’ll open a Snapshot poll next Monday (April 17) with the options discussed here and let it run for a week. Finally, we’ll update the Snapshot space’s settings with the result of that poll.
Some questions to get you thinking about what the right number might be:
I agree as well, scams have been so difficult to deal with off late
I agree as well, scams have been so difficult to deal with off late
We think it's worth considering moving polling onchain and simultaneously reforming the governance process to make proposing proposals more accessible. We proposed a solution in December for the community's consideration.
We think it's worth considering moving polling onchain and simultaneously reforming the governance process to make proposing proposals more accessible. We proposed a solution in December for the community's consideration.
Additionally, we’re aware of several funds that utilize custodians and thus cannot participate in off-chain votes such as Snapshot.
In conversation with the Foundation, we proposed the idea of bringing polling on-chain, making polling a requirement to the governance process, and enabling all parties to participate in votes. Effectively, this would be a junior and senior governance structure.
The junior governor would have its own proposal requirements and could feature a lower proposal threshold and quorum threshold. Upon success, the proposal could be passed onto the senior governor, likely requiring a higher quorum threshold to be executed.
In addition to the benefits already listed above, there would be a third primary benefit. This setup could be used to lower the proposal threshold significantly, making governance more accessible, while maintaining the security of the DAO. For example, the proposal threshold for the junior governor contract could be set to 100k and have a quorum of 10m. Improving upon the existing 2.5m threshold. However, only a proposal that achieves a 10m quorum would proceed to the senior governor, where the execution would occur if it reached the full 40m.
For those who are familiar with Community Autonomous Proposals (CAPs), which allow individuals without the necessary votes to make miniature-like proposals, this system would be a massive improvement. CAPs were unsuccessful at gaining traction because they require votes to be delegated, which is unrealistic when votes cannot be relegated.
If voters are interested in seeing this, we could formalize the structure and apply for a grant to develop and implement the new smart contracts.
Since our December post, we developed the next iteration of the Community Autonomous Proposals (CAPs), the Community Proposal Factory (CPF). We could utilize this work and directly integrate it into the protocol's governance process. Alternatively, Uniswap governance could authorize additional approved methods for conducting temperature checks, such as utilizing a CPF. If the community is interested in either of the options, we would be happy to pursue them further.
We think it's worth considering moving polling onchain and simultaneously reforming the governance process to make proposing proposals more accessible. We proposed a solution in December for the community's consideration.
We think it's worth considering moving polling onchain and simultaneously reforming the governance process to make proposing proposals more accessible. We proposed a solution in December for the community's consideration.
Additionally, we’re aware of several funds that utilize custodians and thus cannot participate in off-chain votes such as Snapshot.
In conversation with the Foundation, we proposed the idea of bringing polling on-chain, making polling a requirement to the governance process, and enabling all parties to participate in votes. Effectively, this would be a junior and senior governance structure.
The junior governor would have its own proposal requirements and could feature a lower proposal threshold and quorum threshold. Upon success, the proposal could be passed onto the senior governor, likely requiring a higher quorum threshold to be executed.
In addition to the benefits already listed above, there would be a third primary benefit. This setup could be used to lower the proposal threshold significantly, making governance more accessible, while maintaining the security of the DAO. For example, the proposal threshold for the junior governor contract could be set to 100k and have a quorum of 10m. Improving upon the existing 2.5m threshold. However, only a proposal that achieves a 10m quorum would proceed to the senior governor, where the execution would occur if it reached the full 40m.
For those who are familiar with Community Autonomous Proposals (CAPs), which allow individuals without the necessary votes to make miniature-like proposals, this system would be a massive improvement. CAPs were unsuccessful at gaining traction because they require votes to be delegated, which is unrealistic when votes cannot be relegated.
If voters are interested in seeing this, we could formalize the structure and apply for a grant to develop and implement the new smart contracts.
Since our December post, we developed the next iteration of the Community Autonomous Proposals (CAPs), the Community Proposal Factory (CPF). We could utilize this work and directly integrate it into the protocol's governance process. Alternatively, Uniswap governance could authorize additional approved methods for conducting temperature checks, such as utilizing a CPF. If the community is interested in either of the options, we would be happy to pursue them further.
