At the moment, multisig has 4 not very active participants, which makes it difficult to sign it every time it is required. It is necessary to change the participants and/or number of participants in the multisig by removing inactive participants, and adding participants who will take active useful participation.
Abstract:
Currently, the execution of multisig transaction often takes 24 hours after the transaction was created. With André’s pace of work and a rapidly changing environment, this creates problems and an unnecessary time gap. Multisig participants must be responsible, but they must also be constantly inside the project and take the necessary actions for its rapid development.
We have two main questions:
is the multisig extension necessary? currently the 6/9 scheme is used, but perhaps for security reasons it is worth changing the 10/15 scheme. Although this may again slow down the transaction execution time.
How to choose new members of the multisig?
We already had a gist (https://gist.github.com/vshvsh/3c855055a4f273c9045c126ce995641c) with the collection of those wishing to participate in the multisig, but due to the lack of great interest, this process was suspended.
Motivation:
yEarn needs the multisig, which will quickly implement the decisions made, while not violating the security of the funds under the wallet’s control.
Specification:
define the multisig scheme;
choose participants for the new multisig;
move from the old multisig to the new one.
For:
scheme of multisig is 6-of-9 Against:
scheme of multisig is 10-of-15
I’m for keeping the 6/9 multisig scheme. A larger number of signers might add latency for proposals to be enacted.
What if you have clear rules in place to incentivize participation and speed. For example, signers need to participate in 50% (arbitrary number) of last 10 signings, or else be replaced by other active members of the community.
I’m also against increasing the multsig size. In my opinion, what we are trying to do here is solve for a more involved set of participants that can make decisions quickly until we transition to a full foundation model. Expanding the set of participants would meaningfully impede the speed at which we are able to do things - and to be honest - we are in a game of catchup with Andre’s coding speed.
@Brian being a multisig member is an unpleasant duty that puts a target on your head. Being replaced is net benefit.
I am for replacing inactive voters in the multisig as a stopgap measure.
We need a more secure scheme, if more latent, for multisig’s ability to mint additional YFI’s but we need to keep it agile for operational duties. This can be served by decoupling minting from other functions, I think we should work in that direction.
It’s like being a politician. Most don’t want to be one and not everyone is cut out for it. But as a multisig participant, you have influence over the community, and hopefully are acting in the best interests of the community.
I do like your idea of decoupling minting power from other operational decisions.
I’m ok for keeping 6/9 signers. We should rotate signers who aren’t showing interest in active participation.
But we should keep in mind that there is another proposal by @Substreight to allow these same MultiSig members to make determinations on how to spend a budget. Which would imply further and deeper involvement !
Yep, thanks to @cp287 for bringing this forward. Refreshing the Multisig now is important if they are to be empowered, as the duties are potentially evolving.
Personally not sure which is preferable between 6/9 and 10/15.
I would like to transfer my spot (0x59171b87817C5F07157066Bd5284707A711229B3) to a community member focusing on the project full time.
When first stepping up to act as a signer, I was under the assumption this would be a short-term transfer of nuclear control from Andre to a trusted group of community members. It’s now clear that the multisig signers will play a more fundamental (and extremely active) role in the evolution of the protocol which speaks volumes to its growth.
The amount of interest and quality of contributors which have stepped up to participate in governance has exceeded my wildest expectation. I’m very thankful that the community is addressing this change and believe it is entirely for the good of the protocol.
I would be open to transferring my spot to @learnyearn given the community and other signers are onboard!
I started working on a new lander for YFI (image below) on Tuesday and it’ll be ready to PR and update the site early next week (front end dev almost done).
I have worked entirely online for over a decade and have bootstrapped, launched and scaled several businesses which are still operational and run by my teams, so I’ve been “full time” on crypto for a while.
Am an early farmer / buyer of YFI, and my core holdings are in YFI, SNX, REN, CRV, NXM.
After some experiences with CeFi recently which turned out ok, it really pushed me all in on the vision of DeFi.
I’m ready to commit and take on more responsibility to grow YFI.
