PIP-22: Multisigs rotations framework update

Summary

Update the framework for future multisig signers rotations.

Context

The Paladin DAO manages 4 multisigs on different chains:

  • Main Treasury on Ethereum (Active since July 2022)
  • Strategic Assets on Ethereum (Active since July 2022)
  • Treasury on Arbitrum (Active since May 2023)
  • Treasury on Polygon (Active from January to September 2023)

The first signers were elected in PIP-4 (July 2022) and were rotated twice in PIP-9 (Jan 2023) & PIP-15 (September 2023). However, rotation currently happens once a signer has been unavailable for a long period and aims to replace him only.

Rationale

Current rules

  • Threshold 5/9 signers
  • Any member unable to sign during 5 weeks should be excluded from the multisigs.

This proposal aims to improve the efficiency of signing sessions by fixing a rotation period, and changing the method to renew signers based on their participation rate in order to evaluate them all. This is inspired from the method used in Jarvis DAO rotations.

Introduce a rotation period

Instead of proposing a rotation when someone is inactive during 5 weeks in a row, the rotations could be done periodically. I’d propose 3 months but from the previous rotations, 6 months seems to be the approximate period already used so will update with the feedback.

Base rotations on signers participation rates

This method defines the amount of transactions to watch since the last rotation across all multisigs and calculates the % of the total transactions signed / signer.

  • The top 3 signers (best participation rate) are auto renewed for the next period if they agree.
  • The middle 4 signers must re-candidate, alongside with potential new candidates
  • The bottom 2 signers (worst participation rate) must leave their place for at least one period

Note: The signer ranked in 7th spot might be added in the bottom 3 if the rate is below 50%. In that case, only 3 will be in the middle category. If above 50%, he’s included in middle 4 and must re-candidate for the next period.

If this proposal is approved, another PIP will be submitted for the next rotation with an analysis of the signing stats of the current period.

New rules proposed

  • Threshold: 5/9 signers
  • Top 3: Auto-renewed if they agree
  • Middle 4 (or 3): Must re-candidate for the next period
  • Bottom 2 (or 3): Must leave their place for at least one period

Means

None

Technical Implementation

Stats can be obtained easily with OnChainDen which doesn’t require extra implementation.

Voting Options

  • Yes, Implement new framework
  • No, Rework proposal
  • Abstain

Poll

Should we update the multisigs rotation framework ?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain
0 voters

I endorse the proposal. This would enable more community members to actively participate in the DAO. However, we should consider implementing safeguards, such as retaining a few trusted team members in multisigs—perhaps 1 or 2.

I don’t think this should be fixed, if core team becomes irrelevant then so be it
resilience > all

Another thing popping to my mind on this topic: a 6 person rotation is too much of a risk in a 5/9 MS. Imo we do have 4-7 really active signers, and I agree we need to rotate the 1-2-3 least active ones, but more would be abusive and create too much political plays on a quarterly basis. Also, if we end up having a perfectly functional MS why kick out the bottom 2 ?

Imo, keep the top 5, and the other 4 have to be re-elected. Wdyt?

1 Like

Adding this poll to define which duration would be proposed for the rotation in this PIP (sorry forgot to add it before)

What duration for signers rotation period ?
  • 1 month
  • 3 months
  • 6 months
  • Other (propose in comments)
0 voters

Make sense indeed, potentially at least one technical profile if emergency txs are needed for example.

It is very unlikely that a 6 person rotation ever happen in practice.

Bottom 2/3 would be replaced for sure, but middle 3/4 could and would probably be reelected if they are great signers, even if additional new candidates show up.

For this to happen it would either require to have 6 bad signers, or 3 bad signers + 3+ middle/top that want to leave.

I doubt we’d have bigger rotations but can’t predict this

Also on the duration, added a poll in the comments

Good question, it never happened in practice tbh, but if it happens & all signers wanna stay, we can just push another PIP proposing to freeze current committee for its efficiency

That can be a way to simplify it - can be added as a 2nd option - but this also force 4 rotations (min/max) when the other solution kicks min 2 /max 6 (unlikely imo)
Also we’re sometimes struggling to get 5 signers so deciding to keep 5 might not improve efficiency as much as we’d like

Thanks for the participation on this topic !

Please don’t forget to vote on the poll defining the rotation period proposed, currently 6 months: PIP-XX: Multisigs rotations framework update - #5 by Dydymoon

If no additional comment arises, the vote will be published on snapshot tonight with the following options:

  • Yes, Implement Option 1
    (Dydymoon Proposition: Auto-Renew Top3 if agree, Middle 3-4 must recandidate, Bottom 2-3 must leave their place for one rotation period - 6 months unless poll results changes)

  • Yes, Implement Option 2
    (Figue Proposition: Auto-Renew Top 5 if they agree, Bottom 4 must recandidate - 6 months rotation period unless poll results changes)

  • No, Rework proposal
    (Keep the current framework)

  • Abstain

Instead of saying it is unlikely, let’s make sure it doesn’t happen by rotating 4 people instead of 6 =)

More and more governance. Please, let’s just have ONE functional system:
If over XX% they stay if not, they leave. And we do this for the bottom 4.

Rotating will not change this. I am on several multisigs, and coordination is simply hard.

Your method removes a lot of flexibility so I prefer the initial one but added yours too as an option.

No, not necessarily more governance, that’s a possibility if the case where “eveything run smoothly scenario” mentionned happens, but as you just said, coordination is simply hard.

Also , are you insinuating that the initial proposal will be unfunctional without trying it ?

I am saying it creates a potential for major disruption inside of the ops of the DAO for no other legitimate reason than an arbitrary post with numbers you decided on. You can 100% argue there is a problem with the least active signers, but I disagree about the middle of the pack.

Flexibility for what?

Easier to just “kick” the last 3 or 4 signers and let them re-candidate with others candidates for the next period (every 3 months).

Complexity isn’t the solution imo.

1 Like

I don’t think so, and your solution to necessarily keep 5 ppl and kick for isn’t better, as it assumes the 5 will wanna stay, which you can’t guarantee.

This framework proposal is not only for the current situation but also for future ones. Until now we never had a rotation based on signers stats. We always ended up waiting for someone to become inactive & block us for some time before reacting.

I’m not saying there are issues with current middle signers, but imo all signers should be evaluated.

Forcing to kick 4 signers every time has more risks to create an importante disruption in the DAO ops as it means we’d need to systematically find 4 new signers every 3 months. In my exemple only 2 or 3 max must leave for one period.

I do agree that currently the responsiveness of the Multisigs ins’t great, and we do face time where it’s hard to find available Signers to carry on all the required transactions.
But I think a system where half of the Signers could be changed at once can create a dangerous situation where a takeover of the Multisigs could happen, which is something we absolutely don’t want to happen.

I think a system were the bottom 3 or 4 Signers are replaced quarterly if not active enough is needed, but should be secured by a limitation of max 4 Signers replaced at once, to avoid any risks (counting the Signers not active enough, and the Signers wishing to step down from the role).
And I think in the case of Signers that are kicked out due to non participation in the Multisigs, if the percentage of signed transaction is under a defined threshold (like signed less than 10% in their first mandate or 2 first mandates), they should be forbidden to be re-appointed in the future, to prevent the same scenario to happen again were we have 1 or 2 fully absent Signers for a whole 3 to 6 months.

And for the idea of a technical profile to be always on the Signers, I am surely biased but I think it makes sens since we want the creation of complex transaction (like the periodically Quest creations, or emergency transactions) to be quick, and not to rely on an external source to provide a payload to be executed by Signers having potentially a harder understanding of all the actions the payload would execute.

2 Likes

I understand your point, but what happens if we have 3 inactive & 2 that want to leave, we just refuse a departure or keep a bad signer ?

Make sense, in favor of adding this rule.

1 Like

This still need more discussion to be decided, but either keep the bas signers, or simply make the signers wanting to step out to wait for the next period (in which case, new onboarded signers should in theory be active enough to cover the future inactivity of the signers wanting to step down, which would be smoother during the next signer change)

1 Like

“3 or 4 signers and let them re-candidate
I never said to exclude them indefinitely.

Edit: I want to say, UP to 3/4 signers, depending on their activity.

1 Like

If more than half of the MS needs to leave then we have some serious problem. I Don’t see how not wanting to enable a majority rotation is controversial tbh.

It doesn’t seems like the most efficient option imo, we should be able to remove inactive signers & let the ppl that wanna stop to do it, but I get your point.

You said let them recandidate for the next period, I understood you meant the second after the one where they got kicked.

Yes, hopefully it won’t but we never know, that’s why framework proposals try to take into account worst scenarios, but it doesn’t mean it will happen in practice.

You’re requesting a higher rotation than me so idk.
In my exemple the Middle 3-4 would most likey be reelected even if they recandidate, except if they are really bad/want to leave + if we have solid replacement candidates.


Also we’re now at 2 votes for 3 months & 2 votes for 6 months, don’t forget to vote on this poll: PIP-XX: Multisigs rotations framework update - #5 by Dydymoon

I support the idea of the proposal:

  • A 6 month rotation seems more simple and it avoid the hassle to renew every quarter. In case the msig isn’t responsive and it threatens the activity DAO maybe let’s say that any delegates can ask only in this case for a forced renewal. Imo delegates are of good faith so this shouldn’t be used to harm the DAO.

  • I support having a technical profile at all time in the msig

  • I understand that the design sparks debate but imo both options would work fine in practice. Still not sure what would be the most efficient. Do you have any examples of other DAOs using one or the other set-ups ? and some learning from them ?

1 Like

The vote has been submitted on snapshot with the two options proposed & 6 months duration for the rotation according to the poll.

Quorum PIP-22: 1 026 470 votes

image

1 Like