We appointed a new Treasury Manager, and there has been some discussions regarding delays from the multi-sig on transaction signatures.
Objective:
To solve transaction speeds and enable our Treasury Manager to deploy our treasury to the best of his ability.
Provide a High Level Overview:
In order to achieve growth and capital efficiency we need our Treasury Manager to be able to work swiftly.
Crypto moves quickly and volatility can happen at a whim. Our treasury manager needs to be able to respond quickly, not only to capture momentum in the market but to be able to protect us and our assets if any significant downturn were to happen. We will achieve this goal by having active people ready to sign as often as possible.
Provide Low Level Details:
To solve this issue I propose that we add known, active and willing individuals onto our multi-sig. I believe that our very active community mods would be an excellent choice, and have reached out to them.
The following individuals have agreed to be on the ballot:
Indeed. Current paid mods would be a great addition to the multi-sig. They already have a vested interest in the success of Wonderland
We do need to replace outright eventually but this is a solid start. Removing current ones now would be a bigger headache due to politics (most are Daniâs bffâs)
First of all, I want to thank @The_Ferengi for starting this discussion.
Most of us have seen @TheSkyhopper face difficulties in his new job position due to multisig delays. The reasons are unknown but this is a great solution. Sometimes every minute counts, waiting for over 20 hours is unacceptable. I donât think we should remove existing multisig members, just add more active people.
I would be more than happy to see any of us get permissions for signing. It can also be someone trustworthy who understands what this task requires. Main goal is to let our TM operate the most efficient way possible.
Looking forward to further discussion and technical details.
Itâs difficult to cast a vote on this, specifically because Iâm not totally for âexpandingâ the multisig lineup so much as I am for restructuring the lineup. I think it would be useful for the community to get direct feedback from all parties on the Multisig with an indication on their committed level of involvement. If any signers are unable or unwilling to provide direct feedback, we should be able to take that as a sign that they would be unwilling to engage in the duties that come along with being a multisig and should be removed from the lineup.
Iâm unsure about who I would be comfortable adding to the multisig in the event we could not quickly resolve whatever is bogging us down right now. I believe the signers should have at least a cursory understanding of what their signing. Itâs important for them to be able to strike a balance between signing quickly and spending the right amount of time on due diligence.
Skyhopper also made the suggestion of blocking out specific times of the day that he and the multisigs could plan to connect each day. This could be a potential solution too. Iâd like to see if we can get Dani to provide his perspective on this possibility.
I feel there are a variety of potential solutions and itâs the most important issue to get sorted asap. I would really like to have Dani communicate with us on this issue the next time he comes through the discord.
Since the multisigâs main purpose is to determine that the trades are proper, what are the experiences and qualifications of the three added into the multisig. Do they have any conflicts of interest to be disclosed?
I agree with the idea of restructuring, but adding people is definitely a âless controversialâ approach. We need this resolved as rapidly as possible, so adding members of the community that already hold an elevated level of trust seems an easy resolution.
Once the new members are added, we could remove signers that are unable or unwilling to perform their duty in a timely manner, but that can be seen as a separate issue.
If by âproperâ you mean ânot stealingâ, I agree. They donât really need to weigh in on whether the trades are a âgood ideaâ from an investment standpoint, as there mandate is entirely related to security of the treasury.
All of those suggested are long term members of the community, who volunteered the time helping the community for many months (until recently becoming members of the paid team last month)
I recently heard about this issue, it is insane to belive that a new TM would be able to do his/hers job under such circumstances with a trail period of 90 days ( WTF? )⌠VOTE TO PUT THIS TO VITE IMIDIATELY!!
WL treasery is ours and our TM should have more possibilitys to move our assets!
Shout out to The Ferengi for raising this issue here for us to move forward!
I support this proposal 100%, the current rate of signing multisig is very slow and itâs making our TM job very difficult. By adding (not removing any current multisig) more signers to the multisig will make tx goes through much faster, every minute we lose on trading means less profit. Those on the ballots are suitable candidates as well. Letâs get this through governance process!
What if the new mods approve of a malicious transaction unintentionally. Or a contract that is actually a bad investment. I presume the current multisig is full of people who actually know how to run a Treasury. I fear that getting a couple yes men behind sky would allow him to make any and all investments without criticism.
Considering that the candidates are blockchain literate and can read TX they are not more likely than current mult-signers to approve a malicious transaction. I would argue that because they are actually invovled in the project on a daily basis and have an interest in itâs day-to-day operations they are less likely to approve such a transaction, if anything.
A contract that is a bad investment, well, thatâs another question entirely. That could still happen now, and isnât as much a question of multi-sign as it is a question of Skyâs ability as treasury manager.
I feel really comfortable with them being on the ballot for multisig. I have seen so much patience and engagement from all of them. It would be good to have quicker implementation of decisions.
Maaan! Yes! Bring in @NalX! That friend is everywhere at the moment in this community, supporting, answering questions, lifting people up, being an all-round excellent person.
We need to remove someone who has not signed in a long time that tells us their engagement.
But yes letâs get some new people added who have a vested interest in timely approvals.
Interesting topic. the actual situation is a unclear. would be nice to hear a clear statement why this is happening from Dani and other multisig. or did I missed it?
it is abuse of power? or just extra security to check how the new TM does his job before give him more âfreedomâ?
as usual no clear answer beside âfucking repeating that the fucking shit treasury should to be moved to Abra, motherfuckersâ.
And well, after mentioning KYC, we went from fuck the suit to serving the suit. Great. what is next?
I am out the day before that happen. For now, still around. anyway two italian months are a long way, luckily.
Still like the concept of WL as it is now and the future plans. I hope that the DAO will make proper decisions in timeâŚ
The purpose of adding more signers to multisig is to make our TM do his job easier as waiting 16-24-48 hours for a single tx is not practical in the fast pace world of DeFi, we need swift action and in favor of Wonderland not other protocol, we need to make Wonderland great again not other protocol.
