[DAO Discussion] New Role - Multisig Signers


I wanted to get a discussion started on a new role I am proposing for WL - that of a multisig signer. It is well understood that in order to better facilitate community governance and effective investments by the DAO/TM, WL needs to add motivated and responsive signers to the multisig. The purpose of this new role is to ensure WL has a responsive multisig while the DAO builds out its treasury team.

This proposal will outline the role requirements, compensation, tenure, and nominees for the role.

Role Requirements

  • Trusted community member who is elected via WIP
  • Responsive and regularly able to review, understand and sign multisig transactions


  • Multisig signing is an arduous, repetitive task requiring commitment, acceptance of liability, and defi knowledge. Signers should therefore be compensated.
  • Proposed compensation range ($500-$1,500 per month, plus $10-$20 per signed tx) → seeking community input on this
    • My finger in the air estimate is that in any given month there could be 100-200 multisig transactions
  • Treasury team members are not eligible for multisig compensation


  • Initial tenure shall be 6 months, allowing WL time to build out the treasury team. After 6 months, the term will expire and multisig signers will have to be renewed through a WIP if deemed necessary

I have spoken with the below nominees, all of which are trusted and active community or team members and would make great additions to the multisig. They have all kindly agreed to be nominated for the role. With the successful election of all nominees, the multisig would become a 3/7, including one backup (Bamchicka).

  • Nal X - Mod and governance chief
  • jclemons - Trusted community member
  • Bamchicka (backup role) - Mod and active community member. Bamchicka will join as a backup multisig signer/safety net and will only receive compensation if they are needed to start signing TX’s

Thanks for the proposal. Definitely need to add more people to the multisig. This could be a good way to transition between TMs and TOs (if the proposal passes) while increasing the security of the multisig.

That being said, I’m thinking we should probably have it up to a 4/7 ? The TM, two of the three here, and G or Dani. This would keep the core team in the loop at the same time. If there is a delay and it cant wait, the backup member can sign.

As for compensation, I will leave it up to the community. Although, an amount per transaction seems too much. Unsure why there should be an extra. Would not want that to lead to trying to sign as fast as possible to get paid. However, that’s a reason not to just put anybody.

As for me personally, I am already being compensated as a moderator, so I am good with having the multisig compensation reduced if it is believed I am making too much :handshake:

Edit: A previous discussion covered this topic recently, there was other options of signers around tho mods:


I had a thought now as this doesn’t mention inter signer dox and if it’s intended might be good to mention so people are more comfortable as opposed to assuming it’s non doxxed people.


If it’s more than one added I would only have flat compensation, so there is no “who signs first gets more”.
Also a thought to add a “failsafe option” aka after unexplained ghosting for xy days the backup takes the role until a new member is voted/or the signer comes back/gets removed automatically after xy days.


The idea is great, but I think more nominees should be added, especially those who are already part of the team (The Mod group). Deciding who ends up getting the multisig signer role should be done by voting, with the most votes deciding who gets elected like we know it from a regular election


I don’t think they should be paid for each transaction…that just encourages everyone to race to see who can sign the fastest. The goal should be to look over the transaction and ensure it’s safe and in the DAOs interest. A monthly payment seems more logical or utilizing trusted people that are already getting paid. I think Nal X brings up most of these points which I agree with.


aren’t there 5 multisigs from the core team on the avax wallet? if we add all the nominees + TM it’d be 4/9 no? also are we adding the same number to the eth wallet? so 3/6 eth?


Not from core team they are from other protocols though.


I worry that 4/7 may be too much of a burden to find time for all four people to be able to sign on a regular basis.

Would recommend we stick to 3/6, can remove one of the nominees to ensure core team involvement.


I have spoken with many mods and community members about multisig role - people are not exactly lining up for this position.

If anyone else would like to be a nominee, I am happy to facilitate that and we can do an election. Let me know.


Sounds good, maybe have one signer (jc) and one backup (Nal), instead of 3 people. If TO’s get added as well that’d be more than enough, imo.


I’m a fan of 3 signers that further validates txs are in best interest of investors and that 2 people haven’t agreed to do rogue things. Until others get added thru other governance I think 3 is important.


Yes, I was considering the 2 TO positions as well. As that remains to be seen I would have the backup as active signer until then, making multisig a 3/5.


3/5 signers is ideal numbers, really need to get things moving without 16-48h wait on multisig, we really need to get more people on the multisig.


Would definitely like to see things getting signed when they need to, so I appreciate this discussion.

I am surprised there aren’t more people who would want to be a signer.


It’s a tough job, have to be very available and the work is quite repetitive and dull, but very important.


Simply as a signer (But of course, needing fixed pay monthly):
I can see if someone in Bastion Trading can do this possibly.

I think the most efficient method is to have a time corridor(s) for signing and actioning and with preferred UCT time schedules mentioned.

Currently, there is simply way too much key man risk on these mutli-sigs.


Topic has moved to RFC: