Multi-Sig Transition

As expressed in this earlier thread: Future Roadmap Proposals - we need to transition all smart contract ownership to a multi-sig, controlled by the community execution team (before we build out the protocol according to the proposed roadmap and completely decentralise the governance and ownership).

As my idea stands to have a merit-based execution team, where community can vote people in and out based on their contribution to the protocol (we will need to determine the exact procedure later), we need the multi-sig to allow rotation, expansion or contraction of the number of signers.

From what i gather @PercentFinance is currently exploring the best solutions for that.

I like the idea of rotation, and I guess a good way to do this is on periodic basis, could be every 6 months for example, just to (1) give the multi-sig holder to execute and participate in the progress and (2) give community the look ahead of this kind of event.

There will be occasions where people can no longer participate in the multi-sig due to a number of reasons. At that time, community can vote for another member to onboard, or the general process could be that the next in row (out of voting process result) to be asked to join.

Yes, I am look at Gnosis Safe which I think it is the best option for us. It allows adding/removing signers quite easily.

@Bluecrypt that is an interesting input, thank you. I think we would need to keep things flexible for the first couple of months at least as we figure out the surface of problems faced by the execution team and, if needed, quickly change multi-sig members due to multiple factors as we all morth into a more robust entity.

@PercentFinance great! From what i gather the transition should be easty to implement and quick in terms of timing except for the 48 timelock?

@Vaspou Yes, it should be easy and quick! It can be done without waiting 48 hours. Basically, all we need to do is to change the admin of the timelock contract (which is the admin of our other contracts) to this new multisig contract.

Ok, so here’s my suggestion:

we create a 5-of-7 community run multi-sig with candidates being decided via rough consensus here through polling (my next message).

Then we vote on the Phase III allocations over the weekend with the expectation that multi-sig will gain control over all smart contracts at least be the end of the vote (should be earlier realistically).

Then starting Monday we do a call out to prominent people in the crypto industry (just a public call-out, like a tweet from @PercentFinance account) - we can also gather rough consensus here about whom do we want to call out before doing it.

and the first 4 to respond would get to become our independent signers in a 7-of-11 multisig. This will allow none of them to block any action by the community execution team members (who will be 7 at all times), but also act as unbias arbiters in a case of execution team contention, as we’d need 7 signatures to sign off on any action.

If there’s no debate on this ^, i’ll post a poll with initial list of names that come to my mind, you can also add people in the comments section if you think i missed someone, i’ll add them through editing the poll.

1 Like

Ya, I like this plan.

I am absolutely ok with this. Well thought!

Ok, so here’s the list of candidates i compiled from the people who were most active and tried to leave impact in these first few weeks.

There are more recently active community members here like @Spartacus so i tried to reflect the actual impact rather that the “time spent/messages created”.

Also, these are limited to people who’ve registered on the governance forum so far - as it signals they care enough to participate.

Feel free to type in the names you think are missing - i’ll edit the post. Please choose 7 candidates you want to nominate. The poll runs for 24 hours.

The votes are visible for the sake of transparency and to avoid abuse. Hope this doesn’t create unnecessary politics. Remember, this is just the initial set, as we’ll need to figure out the actual execution team as we move along - which means the signers will be rotated as it’s done and the final team should be voted in by a governance vote.

No self-voting please! There’s too little of us, so each vote is valuable. Don’t vaste your vote on yourself, as those don’t count. If you feel otherwise - please explain your stance in the thread below.

Any of these signers can and will be voted out for inactivity, so if you DON’T want to participate, but see your name here, please respond below.

Please swap my self-vote to a vote for @brisket

1 Like

Hey all, doesn’t look like anyones voting for me anyways, but I’m not interested in being a multi sig signer, thanks for the nomination though

1 Like

Hey everyone, I’ve been reflecting on this multi-sig thing and I have a few thoughts to share.

  1. I am overwhelmingly in favor of doing this and I think community ownership is both necessary and awesome.
  2. I’m super flattered by all the support in this vote as it currently stands.
  3. I’m not a super technical person and so I want to give my slot in the multi-sig to @Spartacus if he is willing to take up the role.

Let me be clear, I’m super committed to Percent, and I think we have a lot of smart people and a coherent vision, so I’m really excited about this project overall. And I’m happy to do what I do best which is community management and communications work… but I want to empower people who are more technical to participate in the multi-sig, and I think @Spartacus would be a really strong choice in this regard. He has made some amazing contributions over the last week and would be a great asset to the community. So, should nothing else change in this vote I would like to delegate my slot and support to @Spartacus. I hope that is alright with everyone!

Looking forward to continuing to contribute here every day though :slight_smile:


Hey @CliveSpader, thanks for shout-out and vote of confidence! I personally feel you should keep the spot yourself! I think the role of multi-sig signer is less on the technical side and more on the has-shown-committment-and-trustworthiness-and-can-also-sign-a-tx side. I’ve only been part of the community for a short time and also feel the existing candidates and yourself are great choices. I’d be happy to step into the roll in the future. Other candidates would also be ahead of me, as per the vote, if you definitely wanted to step aside.

The way i understand @CliveSpader’s decision is to make sure we continue benefiting from having community members that bring a lot of value. It’s a way to show the appreciation and make ensure the person is motivated to stay committed to Percent. @Spartacus has so far shown that they are both deeply involved and motivated, but i would argue that Clive’s gesture can also bring more attention and appreciation to their input from the rest of the community, so i support this decision.

The people who have voted for @CliveSpader gave him their trust and support. I think that by using it this way, he is re-investing this social capital to yield an even greater return to the community, because as he said - he’s not going away. And i believe him, as i feel exactly the same way.

To put the words into action i want to do the same for @pyggie.

Throughout the past couple of weeks i’ve personally paid attention to their inputs and can firmly say that they are always insightful and caring for the project.

I’m not much of a technical person either, just like Clive and i think we need to cherish the community members who are, as well as being passionate about the project and willing to offer their insights. So if the vote continues the way it goes (looks like it), i’m also willing to give up my spot to “lock in” @Pyggie with our project and drive more attention and (hopefully) appreciation for their input.

If @CliveSpader or another candidate ahead of me in the vote is forgoing their place then I’m happy to be a multisig signer. I think @pyggie is also a great option considering your reasoning, @Vaspou.

1 Like

Ok! This is great. Just to clarify I think @cany @Bluecrypt @PercentFinance @vfat and @brisket are all amazing, thoughtful, and proven community leaders, so I stand by my votes for each of them.

The way I see this @Spartacus and @pyggie is you are both just shy of being in the seven person multi-sig as it is, coming in at 8th and 9th. If @Vaspou and I step back (just from the multi-sig) then you both are able to take part and we get the huge upside of having you both as part of our community to help this project get off the ground.

I will be stay involved and contribute in all the ways I think are meaningful, and it sounds like so will @Vaspou, so I am for moving the following list of multi-sig signers to a formal vote on snapshot to get community confirmation:

@PercentFinance @Bluecrypt @cany @vfat @brisket @Spartacus and @pyggie