Proposal to improve the Paladin Governance framework
The Paladin Governance framework currently have the following categories:
- PGP : Paladin Governance Proposal : Treasury allocations, change of parameters, partnerships
- PCM : Paladin Constitution Modification : Change the Paladin Constitution (20% Quorum)
- PURe : Paladin Upgrade Request : Addition of new dApps to be managed by the DAO or large modification of the Paladin codebase
- PPP : Paladin Partner Program : Create a framework to whitelist partners to host a front end of Paladin’s dapps or use our software for internal use.
Paladin governance evolved since the first framework implementation. Some categories are not very used until now (eg:PCM), and others were created for a specific goal but included different topics (eg: modifying Quest fees in the Partner program category)
The new categories intend to group vote types by theme and risk exposure for Paladin in order to have a correlated level of parameters and voting duration. This will be done with an update of the scope and parameters for each category.
A) Reminder of the required information for any proposal type
Governance forum post: Each proposal should be posted on the forum for at least 48h which allows the community to give feedback, propose changes, and vote on a sentiment poll. Forum topics also need to reach some consensus before posting on snapshot.
Proposal type, number and name: Each proposal must be easily identifiable and classified :
- Type: This will be detailed in the second part of the proposal
- Name: The name must be the same on the forum post and snapshot (Max 10 words)
- Number: Each topic needs a n° to identify the post order on the forum & on snapshot
Summary: Short description of the proposal (1-2 sentences max)
Rationale: Detailed explanation of the proposal
Means: Resources needed for this proposal (if any)
- Human resources: Special skills required (Dev or others)
- Treasury resources: Proposal cost, % of the treasury required
Voting options: List the options available on the snapshot vote, including an “Abstain” one.
B) Proposition of new categories
The different types of proposals depend on the subject discussed and the importance for the protocol.
Each category could have a different duration and quorum, however the Paladin quorum is currently set up at 15% and can’t be updated for each proposal as the governance is off chain on snapshot.
To verify, we could calculate and add the quorum to each proposal, we can discuss if this would be relevant in the comments.
This proposal aims to focus on 4 categories: PIR, PGM and PIP and PEP. The categories PUR, ¨PCM and PPP would be deleted and included in the ones selected.
Why remove the PUR and PCM categories ?
The PCM category is only about Paladin constitution, and is the only vote with a higher quorum than any other topic. As updating it represents an important improvement, I propose to move it to the PIP category (described below)
The PURe is a category that included several topics that could be added partially in PGM and partially in PIR (described below)
Why remove the PPP category ?
The PPP framework started in the PURe category, offering to external projects the possibility to host a Quest front end Integration. Later on it was used to vote on a launch partner program with a protocol that did not follow their part of the deal. The others votes were updates of the Quests fees.
I suggest moving the front end hosting/partnerships in PIR and protocol fees updates in PIP.
Paladin Integration Request (PIR)
PIRs are mainly focus on integrations and would regroup several topics such as :
Partnerships (initially included in PGP)
Front end hosting/Integration request (initially included in PPP)
Whitelist of DAO/Contracts to lock hPAL (New)
Support of a new asset on Paladin Lending (New)
Support of a new veToken on Warden (New)
Whitelist a new token as reward on Quest (New)
Additional informations required for a PIR:
- Project Presentation: (After summary)
- Protocol name, app link and TVL
- Asset TVL (If new asset on Paladin or Warden)
- Docs & audit(s) links
- Twitter/Discord/Telegram/Lens links and community sizes
Considering that integrations proposals could happen a lot in the future, and that the risk for the protocol is lower than other proposal types, we could consider the following parameters:
- Admin: Team multisig
- Quorum: 10% of the hPAL total supply (vs 15% currently)
- Voting duration: 3 days
Paladin Governance Management (PGM)
PGMs are mainly about the treasury, the DAO organization and common governance proposals such as PGP 11. It would regroup several topics such as:
- Treasury allocation strategy & allocations
- POL Management
- DAO expenses (operational costs, quests…)
- Tokens swaps / D2D swaps
- Contributors/Dao committees rewards
- Liquidity Mining adjustments (Included, then removed after starting optimistic votes)
- Bounties/Grants budgets
- Common Governance proposals (ex: Paladin Visual Identity)
Additional informations required for a PGM:
- Context: (After summary)
Removed from the PGMs scope :
- Partnerships (PIRs)
- Parameters update (moved to the next category)
- Election of DAO committee and Multisig signers (moved to the next category)
PGMs mostly concern the protocol treasury and governance management, which is why it might be best to define more conservative parameters than PIRs:
- Admin: Community multisig
- Quorum: 15% of the hPAL total supply
- Voting duration: 5 days (vs 3 days currently)
Paladin Improvement Protocol (PIP)
PIPs are about the most important modifications either on the protocol directly, on the DAO, on the constitution or on the governance framework.
The PIPs would regroup several topics such as:
- New dApps managed by the DAO (Initially PURe category)
- Modification of the smart contract parameters (Initially in PGP category)
- Large modification on the codebase (Initially in PURe category)
- Modification of the protocols fees (Initially in PPP for Quest)
- Deployment of new versions of the protocols (New)
- DAO committees & Multisig signers election or modification (Initially in PGP category)
- Change the Paladin Constitution (Initially PCM category)
- Modification of the governance framework (New)
- Deprecate a Paladin Lending Pool (New)
- Unlist a Warden Whitelisted Token (New)
- Minimum holding to post on snapshot (New) ?
Additional information required for a PIP:
- Context: What’s the modification and why it’s needed.
- Technical implementation: Highlight the technical implementations of this proposal if any.
PIPs are the most critical and important types of proposals, as it’s directly about the core products or a major change in constitution/ governance framework. For this reason, we should consider more conservative parameters than other categories:
- Admin: Team multisig (for the 5 starting points) or Community Msig (for the 4 following)
- Quorum: 20% of the hPAL total supply (vs 15% currently except PCM already 20%)
- Voting duration: 7 days (vs 3 days currently)
PEP: Paladin Emergency Protocol
Considering the importance of timing in certain situations, this category was recently brought to Paraswap Governance and aims to prepare the DAO for any potential emergency action that might have to be done.
Scope: User funds are at risk
Actions: Immediate intervention by pausing the system, then a community discussion + PEP 24h vote time for further actions. Since the admin rights are held by the Paladin Core multisig at the moment, only the Core Team will be able to pause the contracts and should release a postmortem on the forum.
However, we could consider electing a Governance committee to take this function and further decentralize the protocol ownership in the future.
Scope: Risk on protocol economic activity (eg: Bug on Warden allowing to keep a boost after the renting period, bug on Quest allowing to be in several ones at the same time etc, or any economic attack/exploit possible)
Actions: 6-12h feedback emergency on the discord/forum then PEP 24h vote time. If the attack happens 24h before the distribution, the reaction should be immediate and follows the same process as Tier-1. The action should be to pause the compromised module only, if possible. A post mortem is also needed in this case.
- Admin: Team multisig
- Quorum: 5% of the hPAL total supply (vs 15% currently)
- Voting duration: 1 day (vs 3 days currently)
Means: No resources needed
- Archive PURe, PCM and PPP categories
- Create PIR, PIP and PEP categories
- Rename PGP in PGM category
- Yes, accept the governance framework update
- No, rework the proposal