Bentobox Governance

When I created Bentobox, and it’s ability to support strategies, it was always meant as an open platform for anyone/any protocol to build on. And while the governance of strategies was initially set to Sushi’s operational multi-sig, it was always envisioned that control of the strategies would be shared between the protocols deployed on the Bentobox.

The power of Bentobox growns when more protocols are deployed on it, but if full control stays with Sushi, it will be perceived as something specific to Sushi and other protocols won’t deploy on it, reducing the network effect.

Currently the largest protocol in TVL deployed on the Bentobox is Abracadabra (MIM, SPELL) and Kashi is second. So I’d like to propose a Bentobox multisig with representation from both protocols. For instance a 4 of 6, with 3 signers from both protocols. This would be in line with the original idea behind Bentobox and will be a great step towards more widespread use of the Bentobox.

  • Yes, share and grow
  • No! mine, mine, mine

0 voters

4 Likes

I 100% agree that collaboration between protocols is what will power the growth of DeFi space and the proposal sounds right at the moment. But what will happen when more protocols deploy significant TVL on Bentobox? These protocols should also want (and they will be right) to have a say on the strategies and be part of the multisig. Will the number of signers grow with each new protocol? We may end with more than 20 signers and this could cause significant difficulties…

1 Like

Well, as long as the protocols with the highest TVL (and therefore the most at risk) can share like a 6 out of 9 multisig, that would be great I think. Activating a strategy is a pretty big step, so it doesn’t have to be super easy. Getting it right is more important than quick.

2 Likes

The issue here is that all of the funds are at risk by an individual strategy. If we want dapps on top we need a rigorous review process for strategies as there is a huge systemic risk of loss of funds.

3 Likes

I am not against the proposal - on the contrary, just think there should be more clarity on the multisig mechanism and governance vote (will the holders of the other protocols gov tokens have the right to vote?), especially when more protocols deploy in future. Really hope more people will jump on the discussion and we find a way to do it right.

1 Like

Of course it’s very important that the strategies deployed are well tested and preferably formally verified. Which is why the current situation where the protocol with the largest TVL at risk has no control over the strategies isn’t ideal.

I suggested a 4 out of 6 with both protocols 3 votes so that both teams have effective veto power. You could even consider a type of wallet/timelock where multiple parties always hold veto power.

But I think this first move will be a great step towards shared governance and making Bentobox truly open.

1 Like

For now the situation is that Sushi team has full control. Abracadabra has over $900M TVL deployed though. So I think moving to a shared governance is just a great first step. And it also provides signalling to other protocols considering Bentobox that this isn’t a Sushi only piece of infrastructure.

1 Like

I think this is a false narrative, in 4 weeks when me migrate Trident we will have the largest TVL by 4-5x. What did we receive when we purchased an unlimited license for BentoBox from you if you intend to control it’s operation?

2 Likes

$716M, and it is all MIM tokens

2 Likes

Ah, I assume you checked Etherscan. That doesn’t prices for everything. This gives a better picture: DeBank | DeFi Wallet for Ethereum Users


1 Like

Point sustained, but I don’t think we count $716M in imaginary MIM tokens. Trident is coming with $4.9B in TVL. The timing of all of this is suspicious imo.

1 Like

Sushi can do what they want with Bentobox. If you want to keep it just for Sushi, that’s your call (and that of the community).

I just thought it would be a benefit for Sushi to create a network effect of having more protocols deployed on Bentobox. I don’t want any control over BentoBox, I’m just sharing my original vision of it and how I think that may benefit the Sushi community and holders.

2 Likes

I’m not sure what you’re insinuating here. Sushi and Abracadabra are both deployed on BentoBox right now. I have no idea what your relationship is like. I don’t follow things very closely these days and I’m mostly playing with pixels and formal verification fun. Unless both communities have become adversarial tribes that can’t be reconciled, it seemed sensible to me that you work together.

1 Like

If this is a long term vision proposal, I suggest we wait until Trident is deployed and Sushi activity is migrated to Bentobox, and then revisit this idea. At this point we will all have a clearer picture of the proportionate stakeholders. This seems much more fair and honest than trying to rush a proposal based on Bentobox TVL, knowing one party’s TVL in Bentobox will increase substantially very soon.

With that in mind, I suggest voting no on this, with the full intention to repost a proposal like this after Trident has been released.

3 Likes

Fair point. It’s a bit of a chicken/egg issue though. Nobody builds on top of Bentobox, because it’s controlled fully by Sushi and Sushi fully controls Bentobox, because nobody has built on it. It would be worthwhile what the vision of the Sushi team and Sushi community is for the control of Bentobox strategies. If it’s a protectionist vision, it’s probably better that I deploy a ‘Degenbox’ where other protocols can play maybe with some more risky/edgy strategies. If the vision is more open, it would be good to communicate that and work with others on picking and deploying strategies.

1 Like

In this scenario are we pretending you aren’t the core developer of Abracadabra?

1 Like

Correct, because I’m not. I have provided the initial Cauldron contract and get a reward for this in SPELL tokens. I do review contracts for them from time to time or help discuss ideas, as I do for others including Sushi.

0xMerlin is the core developer on the Solidity side and they have a team for front-end and solidity that also works on Popsicle (as far as I’m aware).

1 Like

wouldnt this essentially imply that all the migrated value of trident would be under the keys of sushi and other protocols?

1 Like

So, is it possible to be created a non-tradable governance token for Bentobox? So each protocol, which deploy on Bentobox will receive an amount of this token representing its share of the total Bentobox TVL. Each protocol will decide for itself which address (or addresses) will hold its Bentobox gov. tokens. As the protocol deploy funds on Bentobox it will receive its gov. tokens, when the protocol decide to withdraw, its tokens will be burned… Do you think it will be fair enough and will resolve the issues which may occur with the future deployment of new protocols?

2 Likes

I think cross protocol ownership of BentoBox could be a good thing for asset providers, more protocols means more brains and teams creating strategies and reviewing them.

But at the same time, BentoBox has been marketed as a sushi product so changing it to a “multi protocols products” feels kinda a lost for sushi.

Voted yes but I think there is a need for more talks and if going for cross protocol ownership, we need to find a sustainable way to do it.

3 Likes