Multi-signature wallet discussion

Given the recent willingness of the current signers of a multi-signature wallet, who may be willing to transfer what has been described as community assets back to the community for specified purposes (including, but not necessarily limited to, the ethereum cross-chain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757]);

Given that distributing a significant amount of finances, and therefore the ability to use finances to consolidate influence over the chain and a very specific vision of its future, to a very small group of people, in a way that can easily bypass governance decisions, or accountability from governance - accountability that would be appropriate for fiduciary responsibility, particularly of a sum of money in the millions, on a governance-based chain; Recognizing that in a general sense that those who hold the majority of usable finances, for practical purposes, are those who really will determine the direction and outcome of a particular project, organization, or chain; and given that as a governance-based chain, these aspects around vision of the chain, and how finances are used to determine the fulfillment of that vision, are to be determined by the whole of governance; and

Given that the documentation outlines community spend proposals as the legitimate way to spend funds in the community pool and that the community pool is “a special fund designated for funding community projects”; given that the Terra whitepaper for this chain states that “…the Terra Protocol offers strong incentives for users to join the network with an efficient fiscal spending regime, managed by a Treasury, where multiple stimulus programs compete for financing. That is, proposals from community participants will be vetted by the rest of the ecosystem…”; and given that the community pool spend proposal and discussion method has been the method for vetting and distributing grants in this chain with success, it is proposed:

• That this vote be a vote of affirmation of the will of the Terra v1 governance community to ask the multi-signature wallet signers to:
Hire an independent attorney to conduct a review to determine, to the best of the attorney’s ability, that the assets in the wallet(s) are free from liability or claims. The cost for the review to come from the assets that are considered free from liability or claims (and if none are, then this vote indicates the ability of the community, to the degree the community pool has the available assets, to vote for payment through a community pool spend proposal). The attorney, as part of this process, will make the review and their legal findings available and those findings to be posted in a publicly accessible place.

If the assets are considered free from liability or claims then to liquidate the assets through either a dark pool, over the counter, or if necessary, on market directly, and then convert them to on-chain assets for the Terra v1 blockchain, and send the assets to the Terra v1 community pool.

• That if the current multi-signature wallet signers are not willing to do the above, after further discussion, and a new multi-signature wallet, or new multi-signature signers for the current wallet(s), is required to transfer the assets, then:
9 of the validators that are the greatest voting power shall be selected, with Vegas Validator being disqualified, for those willing to serve as signers, and moving to the next validator, until 9 validators are in agreement of accepting the responsibility (7 of 9 signers required to initiate transactions for the wallet). Or The election of 9 multi-signature wallet signers will commence. Each candidate must include their full legal name, a brief biography of themselves, and their involvement and work accomplished toward the restoration of the Terra v1 blockchain after the crash in May 2022. The top 9 candidates, meeting the above criteria and the criteria in the following point, with the highest number of “yes” votes will be elected to be a signer on the multi-signature wallet.
The last signature for this wallet is the community pool wallet( this will be a wallet with veto powers on the multisign wallet. ( for this to happen a new proposal option have to be created)

In order to accept responsibility as a signer, that person will sign a legal agreement to do what has been outlined above in obtaining a legal review of assets, and then liquidate and transfer all assets to the community pool.  It is required under this proposal that the legal agreement will be drawn up by the (or an) independent attorney, will include all provisions from this proposal, and will be held on file with that attorney (or a legal service), and the attorney (or a legal service), which will make their name, or firm name, and address publicly known for any legal requests or issues where a copy of the legal agreement(s) are required for legal purposes (this shall be completed by the current multi-signature wallet holders, or if not, then is the first task of the newly elected multi-signature wallet holders, who will not be authorized to do any further tasks until this task is done, and their names are signed to the legal document, and thereby having accepted the role, or not signed, and thereby rejecting any further role or action with the multi-signature wallet or its assets).  The independent attorney (or legal service) will provide a statement that is publicly posted that this process has been completed.  The only exception to the outlined responsibilities and tasks above  would be:

 The only exception would be that if the funds are determined to be free from liability or claims, signers may use funds to purchase legal insurance, if it can be obtained, to provide protection for legal issues arising that are not connected with abuse of their position as a signer (including violation of fiduciary responsibility), violation of the legal agreement they signed as part of their responsibility as a signer, or any aspect of negligence as part of their duty as a signer of the multi-signature wallet. If reasonable insurance is not available, then reasonable legal costs for representation (solely on the basis of their position as a signer) regarding any claims against the signer may be applied for through a community spend proposal, to the degree that amount required is available in the community pool, and as long as it does does not arise as a result of abuse of their position as a signer (including violation of fiduciary responsibility), violation of the legal agreement they signed as part of their responsibility as a signer, or any aspect of negligence as part of their duty as a signer of the multi-signature wallet.

• That if the funds are transferred (from either the current signers, or new signers of a new wallet, or of the same wallet(s)), each community spend proposal seeking a grant from these funds would need to specify in the official proposal discussion system:
That the potential grant recipients are: “seeking funds associated with funds transferred to the community as a part of proposal [this proposal number]” (if a proposal discussion, and/or proposal, does not include this notification, then it will be considered a grant proposal against general funds in the community pool, and not from these particular funds within the community pool).

In addition to individuals, Terra v1 Community groups, and the Foundation that will most likely be established as part of proposal 8813, will be responsible to help educate their followers about terms of funding requirement minimum expectations from these assets, and make sure to engage with grant proposal discussions in order to help provide appropriate vetting of grant proposals by asking those seeking grant proposals appropriate questions and ask them to make appropriate documentation, financials, and plans available within their proposal discussions.

o That grants sought as a result of these assets follow the following outline of milestones (as a minimum):
 Projects where total funding sought is under $30,000 equivalent (no milestone requirements, but must make case for needs and should have some aspects of requirements and design complete to what would be appropriate for an angel investor presentation)
 Projects where total funding sought would be equal to or greater than $30,000: It goes through 3 funding rounds based on minimum milestones (this means that the initial round seeking funding would be requested in order to complete milestone 1, which must be completed before seeking funding for milestone 2, etc.):
• 1) requirements and design
• 2) code complete and test ready (or appropriate project management milestone for any potential non-software development specific aspects toward Layer 1 software development or Infrastructure), and
• 3) product tested, reworked, and shipped/accepted/deployed (with appropriate external and security review)

 That remaining funds as part of the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal are to be stated by the proposer in their proposal discussion seeking a grant, as well as in their proposal. In order to determine the amount of assets available, the proposer will research all previous proposals which have passed that have requested funds as part of the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, and subtract those coins from the the amount of coins sent to the community pool from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal. The amount reported will be coins available before the proposer’s proposal is submitted, and will be accompanied by the original multi-signature wallet(s) transaction id(s) to the community pool, and a list of all proposals that had passed seeking grants using assets from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal (to be reviewed and checked by those partaking in the discussion, and stating their agreement or disagreement - along with their own research).
 It is up to the proposer to fully outline all aspects of the milestone requirements regarding their project, and answer appropriate questions. If the proposer does not do this, governance should not vote to accept the grant proposal (either as an original proposal, or as a follow-up funding round based upon the appropriate milestone that has been completed and reported, allowing for the proposer to seek funding for the next milestone for the project in question).
 This proposal allows for the use of smart contract(s) to help accomplish the above, although does not necessarily require them.
 While all parties attempt to seek to provide this level of accountability and vetting expectations of milestones, it is still recognized that an individual may create a proposal for a community pool spend proposal outside of these guidelines (however, it would be up to governance to provide the review required for the above minimum guidelines for those seeking grants through the community pool for the purposes of the funds associated with this proposal).
For further proposal discussion see: Reclaiming to the community the Off-Chain Community Assets

Signed

Vegas

AE

Co-Signed

Raider

11 Likes

I support.

3 Likes

I really dont understand this. It really is hard to understand. I will read it a few times and maybe it will be clearer?

11 Likes

Maybe im dumb but I dont understand anything. All latest Vegas proposals make no sense to me. Maybe Its me.

9 Likes

Have you considered if TFL are found liable in the potential case? If we mix these funds with the community pool you could expose the community pool to a court order.

I’d suggest making a separate wallet to receive the funds. Not sure if this will be enough to stave off liability but it’s better than putting it in the community pool.

4 Likes

@Vegas Thank you for your effort to write that up.
If I may be so bold to give a few words of advice:

Please make sure that your texts are being proofread before published. I as well as others have trouble understanding what is being written.
There’s no shame in getting help from others.

11 Likes

I support.

This proposal seems very clear to me. There are legal terms and financial aspects that may be difficult for many to understand. But it is clear the procedure and the steps that follow each other.

Who do I consult about the legal aspect. It is clearly stated in the proposal. The independent lawyer hired will proceed to verify the legal implications of the funds in the multi-signature wallet.

Please read carefully. To me honestly, the proposal is quite forceful and with a lot of logic of a decentralized system. As for example, the power of beto of the community in the decisions taken by the group of 9 members.

6 Likes

Bro are you using Google translate

3 Likes

Hi @Pholuna ,

Please let us know which portions are not as clear. It will help us to refine the language so that it is much clearer, and will help to support the community much better (which is the goal).

Thank you, and I hope you are doing well today :slight_smile:

Note: I am putting in a link below to the proposal text (as it is above), but formatted in an outline (it may be a little easier to read that way). Since it is a link, and some may not feel comfortable with a link, I am also including a copy of the discussion but formatted as an outline here as well (but, please know that the link will contain any changes that happen as part of this discussion and any merits within discussion that lead to any potential changes). The first two major points deal with the multi-signature wallet itself, the third major point attempts to outline how the funds will be tracked (general vs. these funds in the community pool) and steps for those seeking grants from these funds (as opposed to general funds - both in the same community pool), and an outline of responsibilities to meet to be able to receive a grant (and future grants based upon milestones). It tried to stay within the structure the system has, while also allowing for smart contracts (but not necessitating them).

Outline Link:

Outline Discussion Text (same as above with exception of areas marked within square brackets):

[Rational:]
Given the recent willingness of the current signers of a multi-signature wallet, who may be willing to transfer what has been described as community assets back to the community for specified purposes (including, but not necessarily limited to, the ethereum cross-chain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757]);

Given that distributing a significant amount of finances, and therefore the ability to use finances to consolidate influence over the chain and a very specific vision of its future, to a very small group of people, in a way that can easily bypass governance decisions, or accountability from governance - accountability that would be appropriate for fiduciary responsibility, particularly of a sum of money in the millions, on a governance-based chain; Recognizing that in a general sense that those who hold the majority of usable finances, for practical purposes, are those who really will determine the direction and outcome of a particular project, organization, or chain; and given that as a governance-based chain, these aspects around vision of the chain, and how finances are used to determine the fulfillment of that vision, are to be determined by the whole of governance; and

Given that the documentation outlines community spend proposals as the legitimate way to spend funds in the community pool and that the community pool is “a special fund designated for funding community projects”; given that the Terra whitepaper for this chain states that “…the Terra Protocol offers strong incentives for users to join the network with an efficient fiscal spending regime, managed by a Treasury, where multiple stimulus programs compete for financing. That is, proposals from community participants will be vetted by the rest of the ecosystem…”; and given that the community pool spend proposal and discussion method has been the method for vetting and distributing grants in this chain with success, it is proposed:

[Proposal:]

  • That this vote be a vote of affirmation of the will of the Terra v1 governance community to ask the multi-signature wallet signers to:

    • Hire an independent attorney to conduct a review to determine, to the best of the attorney’s ability, that the assets in the wallet(s) are free from liability or claims. The cost for the review to come from the assets that are considered free from liability or claims (and if none are, then this vote indicates the ability of the community, to the degree the community pool has the available assets, to vote for payment through a community pool spend proposal). The attorney, as part of this process, will make the review and their legal findings available and those findings to be posted in a publicly accessible place.

    • If the assets are considered free from liability or claims then to liquidate the assets through either a dark pool, over the counter, or if necessary, on market directly, and then convert them to on-chain assets for the Terra v1 blockchain, and send the assets to the Terra v1 community pool.

  • That if the current multi-signature wallet signers are not willing to do the above, after further discussion, and a new multi-signature wallet, or new multi-signature signers for the current wallet(s), is required to transfer the assets, then:

    • 9 of the validators that are the greatest voting power shall be selected, with Vegas Validator being disqualified, for those willing to serve as signers, and moving to the next validator, until 9 validators are in agreement of accepting the responsibility (7 of 9 signers required to initiate transactions for the wallet).

      • [OR Potential Alternative :] The election of 9 multi-signature wallet signers will commence. Each candidate must include their full legal name, a brief biography of themselves, and their involvement and work accomplished toward the restoration of the Terra v1 blockchain after the crash in May 2022. The top 9 candidates, meeting the above criteria and the criteria in the following point, with the highest number of “yes” votes will be elected to be a signer on the multi-signature wallet. The last signature for this wallet is the community pool wallet( this will be a wallet with veto powers on the multi-signature wallet. (for this to happen a new proposal option have to be created)
    • In order to accept responsibility as a signer, that person will sign a legal agreement to do what has been outlined above in obtaining a legal review of assets, and then liquidate and transfer all assets to the community pool. It is required under this proposal that the legal agreement will be drawn up by the (or an) independent attorney, will include all provisions from this proposal, and will be held on file with that attorney (or a legal service), and the attorney (or a legal service), which will make their name, or firm name, and address publicly known for any legal requests or issues where a copy of the legal agreement(s) are required for legal purposes (this shall be completed by the current multi-signature wallet holders, or if not, then [it will be] the first task of the newly elected multi-signature wallet holders, who will not be authorized to do any further tasks until this task is done, and their names are signed to the legal document, and thereby having accepted the role, or not signed, and thereby rejecting any further role or action with the multi-signature wallet or its assets). The independent attorney (or legal service) will provide a statement that is publicly posted that this process has been completed. The only exception to the outlined responsibilities and tasks above would be:

      • The only exception would be that if the funds are determined to be free from liability or claims, signers may use funds to purchase legal insurance, if it can be obtained, to provide protection for legal issues arising that are not connected with abuse of their position as a signer (including violation of fiduciary responsibility), violation of the legal agreement they signed as part of their responsibility as a signer, or any aspect of negligence as part of their duty as a signer of the multi-signature wallet. If reasonable insurance is not available, then reasonable legal costs for representation (solely on the basis of their position as a signer) regarding any claims against the signer may be applied for through a community spend proposal, to the degree that amount required is available in the community pool, and as long as it does does not arise as a result of abuse of their position as a signer (including violation of fiduciary responsibility), violation of the legal agreement they signed as part of their responsibility as a signer, or any aspect of negligence as part of their duty as a signer of the multi-signature wallet.
  • That if the funds are transferred (from either the current signers, or new signers of a new wallet, or of the same wallet(s)), each community spend proposal seeking a grant from these funds would need to specify in the official proposal discussion system:

    • That the potential grant recipients are: “seeking funds associated with funds transferred to the community as a part of proposal [this proposal number]” (if a proposal discussion, and/or proposal, does not include this notification, then it will be considered a grant proposal against general funds in the community pool, and not from these particular funds within the community pool).

    • In addition to individuals, Terra v1 Community groups, and the Foundation that will most likely be established as part of proposal 8813, will be responsible to help educate their followers about terms of funding requirement minimum expectations from these assets, and make sure to engage with grant proposal discussions in order to help provide appropriate vetting of grant proposals by asking those seeking grant proposals appropriate questions and ask them to make appropriate documentation, financials, and plans available within their proposal discussions.

    • That grants sought as a result of these assets follow the following outline of milestones (as a minimum):

      • Projects where total funding sought is under $30,000 equivalent (no milestone requirements, but must make case for needs and should have some aspects of requirements and design complete to what would be appropriate for an angel investor presentation)

      • Projects where total funding sought would be equal to or greater than $30,000: It goes through 3 funding rounds based on minimum milestones (this means that the initial round seeking funding would be requested in order to complete milestone 1, which must be completed before seeking funding for milestone 2, etc.):

          1. requirements and design
          1. code complete and test ready (or appropriate project management milestone for any potential non-software development specific aspects toward Layer 1 software development or Infrastructure), and
          1. product tested, reworked, and shipped/accepted/deployed (with appropriate external and security review)
      • That remaining funds available for grants, as part of the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, are to be stated by the proposer in their proposal discussion seeking a grant, as well as in their proposal. In order to determine the amount of assets available, the proposer will research all previous proposals which have passed that have requested funds as part of the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, and subtract those coins from the the amount of coins sent to the community pool from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal. The amount reported will be coins available before the proposer’s proposal is submitted, and will be accompanied by the original multi-signature wallet(s) transaction id(s) to the community pool, and a list of all proposals that had passed seeking grants using assets from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal (to be reviewed and checked by those partaking in the discussion, and stating their agreement or disagreement - along with their own research)

      • It is up to the proposer to fully outline all aspects of the milestone requirements regarding their project, and answer appropriate questions. If the proposer does not do this, governance should not vote to accept the grant proposal (either as an original proposal, or as a follow-up funding round based upon the appropriate milestone that has been completed, and reported, allowing for the proposer to seek funding for the next milestone for the project in question).

      • This proposal allows for the use of smart contract(s) to help accomplish the above, although does not necessarily require them.

      • While all parties attempt to seek to provide this level of accountability and vetting expectations of milestones, it is still recognized that an individual may create a proposal for a community pool spend proposal outside of these guidelines (however, it would be up to governance to provide the review required for the above minimum guidelines for those seeking grants through the community pool for the purposes of the funds associated with this proposal).

For further proposal discussion see:

2 Likes

Stop steal funds no

1 Like

Such a brilliant idea for decentralization, no sense of power monger, limit legal issue, funds visibility to the LUNC community, etc…

What more can we ask for??

4 Likes

Can we have the names of Vegas, A.E. and Raider? If they want to be in control of the funds we need to know who they are. There needs to be transparency. Thanks

1 Like

We do not want to be in control of any funds. We are proposing a mechanism by which the funds can be controlled with existing community entities/oversight.

If you wish to see my name you can find it in my github profile: Raider7019 (Matt Western) · GitHub

7 Likes

Vegas in its proposal clearly says that its validator will not be part of the 9 signers

8 Likes

Such a brilliant idea for decentralization, no sense of power monger, limit legal issue, funds visibility to the LUNC community, etc…

What more can we ask for??

6 Likes

Hi @Rex_x ,

I know you and I already talked in a different forum regarding this, just sharing it here as part of the discussion for others.

Personally I feel having multi-signature wallet signers bind themselves by signing a legal document in regards to their responsibility and liability, given the very specific task, and having it held on file with the attorney (or legal service) where it is publicly accessible for legal situations, should protect the community (while still protecting a person’s privacy and family).

At the same time, since the reason for this discussion is to seek feedback, and to consider the merits, in order to to strengthen the proposal, I really appreciate your feedback, both there and here, that signers should have their public identity known - that was very helpful, thank you for that feedback.

I have chosen to not share my public identity. I have worked in the IT field for nearly 30 years, and I can say that there is a reason to protect your identity online. So, that will remain a mystery I guess.

However, I am not proposing myself as a signer, nor do I anticipate doing that. For those who are signers, the potential proposal open for discussion would require them to sign a legal agreement created by an attorney (with terms from the proposal) and would be accessible for legal situations by members of the community. There is an alternative option that is seeking discussion regarding whether the signers are validators, or members of the community (recognizing that members of the community could still include representatives from validators). For the alternative option for signers (ie. elected from among Terra v1 governance community members), it would also require them, at least in its current form, to share certain aspects about themselves - such as their name. [The portion regarding who would be signers for the multi-signature wallet is open for discussion (particularly between the two alternatives listed in the proposal discussion description outline).]

The important thing to remember is that this proposal is not advocating for a perpetual existence of the multi-signature wallet (or at least with the assets in it), nor a “senate”. It is attempting to find a path that will get the current assets into the community pool as quickly as possible with legal review. It does attempt to outline process for grants (to meet the goal of having the money transferred by the current wallet signers back to the community to help with aspects around Layer 1 development and security, in a way that is not too cumbersome - to attempt to meet any concerns the current wallet signers may have, since it really requires them to do any transfer), while also protecting governance’s ability to speak into the ultimate underlying vision and direction of the chain and it’s decisions.

I hope that helps out a little bit, and that you have an awesome day :slight_smile:

4 Likes

No with veto

3 Likes

Why? What is the basis for your decision? A no because no… It is nothing.

Can you please substantiate your decision?

1 Like

This proposal still leaves me with to many questions to be honest. Thanks Naatie for sharing a much clearer version of the text, I struggled with the above text a lot.

So My questions are:

  1. If we put all the money in the community pool as suggested, how will we as a community pay for
    upkeep and LCD points in the future? If/when TFL decides that they won’t spot the bill anymore.

  2. Why is it difficult for a lot of people to understand, the risk of devaluation, that comes with placing all these funds in the community pool. There are still a lot of volatile events ahead of us I reckon. A multisig wallet with exposure to several assets and pools is way more robust if compared to our community pool.

  3. Why not just take control of the funds? I’ve read multiple times that this is the only deal on the table currently anyway. Appoint new signors and take control before this opportunity is lost to the community forever.

  4. Has anyone asked him/herself the question why TFL created this multisig in the first place? I will leave this link for everyone interested. It’s an Agora text: Proposal to significantly increase liquidity on Ethereum Curve UST pools through the use of Votium, Convex, and Tokemak

Lastly I really don’t believe a seven day decision protocol for each and every decision… is the way to go.

It’s because of these questions and reasoning that I cannot and will not support this proposal.

5 Likes

As i was typing Nigel more elequently put up questions i had with more inc (well done)

Also have you read Alex new medium article as a way to potentially clear funds and start afresh.
Id like to know your opinions as i believe this works well with Vegas rushed and open to interpretation previous proposal

Im also going to be completely and brutally honest that i am weary about the people putting up the proposal (A.E not included)

4 Likes