Treasury Multisig Member Rotation

Background

The Sushi Treasury is currently behind a 8 member Gnosis Multisig. The original members of this multisig were elected through publicly nominated elections / snapshot votes in the beginning days of Sushi. Overtime, the members of the multisig haven’t been 100% clear (due to stepping down or originally not filling the position) to which we still don’t really know who exactly makes up the multisig. Another problem is that the delay we’ve had from these members of the multisig has prevented us from operating efficiently, with it taking on average 30 days or more to get transactions executed from the treasury.

Current example of this can be shown with the Toke Staking Proposal that was passed a month ago, and the current part 1 of 2 transactions to stake these TOKE tokens is still awaiting 1 more sig to be able to execute it.

Proposal

It has been suggested by those that are still present/active on the Treasury multisig that we should be looking to rotate 3-4 positions on the multisig.

This proposal hence will determine if this rotation should happen or not. And discussion following on the process we should take to rotate the members.

Recently Yearn had to do the same thing with their multisig shown by this tweet by banteg: https://twitter.com/bantg/status/1533222650838908928?s=20&t=DJFgXDm16UEfJSU7BegPcQ

Thus, we should likely take the same approach to finding new members for the multisig w/ same criteria needed as banteg posted for their multisig.

Candidates could be sourced directly from that tweet, or we could do our own form of advertisement/tweet to find those interested in being actively engaged on the Treasury multisig.

  • Rotate Members
  • Keep As Is

0 voters

5 Likes

I agree with Rotate Members but I think it’s better if they are chosen from inside sushi community
they should have high confidence and we take time in choosing them and be known to the community and they are not strangers to the sushi community

I voted for a rotating multisig but I would say we need to discuss the sourcing method. I understand the point of having non-affiliated multisig members but personally i feel like that concept is a defi pipedream and designed to fail purely because there is little incentive for people to remain engaged. I still think there should be a COC and they should be on the multisig as the COC will naturally rotate at the will of the community.

3 Likes

This needs to happen.

Quicker execution of transactions allows for more innovation and development by the DAO. It is true people move on - having a stale group of singers kills forward progress.

The criteria above feels fair and would welcome Sushi’s own campaign for new signers. A mix of core members, investors, and community stewards seems like solid diversify.

4 Likes

I think it would be a good idea, but I believe that the activity of the multi-sig is stagnated because people are not compensated for their time or gas.

I think the fellow community members are promising members that could be a good fit to include in the multi-sig: @BoringCrypto @pocketsquare @mountain_goat @CryptoLamer

On many occasions, these members have been active on the forum and in the discord, advocating and speaking up on how to improve SushiSwap. Therefore, I think they would be good possible candidates for the multi-sig.

4 Likes

Everyone who wants to get a bit more details about the current Multisg format and members, please see here: Sushiswap Treasury Multisig Analysis.

5 Likes

Rotating multi-sig members sounds like a very good idea. Would also expect that these individuals be selected from within the community.

I would note, that when it comes to finances, I would strongly suggest that anyone with partial control over the funds, should be doxxed to some extent. This way we avoid the potential dangers of having a 0xSifu or person with a similar history having any potential control over the treasury or other usable funds.

1 Like

What @SCNightshade mentions here regarding stagnation is worth considering. Similar to what we have discussed with oversight committees, I strongly believe in “you get what you pay for.” Not that the compensation has to be outrageous. But if you want people to not disappear and drop their responsibilities, you they should be compensated. It doesn’t guarantee they take responsibility seriously. But it sure does reduce the likelihood that they just disappear.

3 Likes

I voted for this as well. But as previously discussed with other potential committees, it would be smart to involve some form of compensation to keep these individuals involved.

Would not be opposed to some mixture of active community members mixed with may a couple of those unaffiliated multisig members. Regardless, I believe compensating (it doesn’t have to be massive comp, but some comp), will likely keep those on the multisig or the other committees, involved.

2 Likes