No Rugs: Community Spend Guidelines Proposal

Lump sum community spend props are dangerous & carry a high risk of risk of default. A frame work to handle these props must be created to ensure that community funds are deployed in a responsible manner that entails longer lasting oversight capability. To achieve this outcome I propose the following:

Spend props need to send funds to a validator/community leadership controlled multi-sig of 4 members. Voting thresholds for the mutli-sigs need to be 74% (3 signers must vote yes for a txn to go through). Validators (in good standing & have served as LUNC validators for 90+ days) can verify they have access to the multi sig through txn memos from their associated wallets.

Spend props are to include several clearly defined payout thresholds that MS signers can then independently verify if they have been met before paying out the portion of the spend prop designated for that sub-goal post.

Multi-sig signers are to be compensated proportional to the review work using 3 work load levels:
Minimal Review: 1.5k USD equivalent
Moderate Review: 3.0k USD equivalent
Intense Review: 4.5k USD equivalent
Spend proposals should factor this as a fixed cost into their proposal.

In the event of a project default, MS signers are to send the remaining contents minus their review fees to the burn wallet.

Should MS signers misappropriate the funds under their custody, they should fully expect to see Tomb Stoning Proposals that would render their veloper addresses permanently unable to sign blocks thus killing their validator node along with slashing of their & their delegators stakes for the duration of the unbonding period.

Community spend proposals should have some manner of oversight to ensure that community resources are allocated in an efficient & effective manner. We as a community should not be so eager to simply write blank checks to people. It is is a bad habit that many Cosmos chains have gotten themselves into & we can and should learn from their mistakes before we make them on our own.

If this were to be passed, all spend props going forward should follow these guidelines to ensure safe use of community funds. If a spend prop were not adhere to these guidelines, their proposal should simply be veto’d.

Thoughts/opinions/comments always appreciated.
Feel free to reach out on Twitter as well @CosmosCapybara


If you want to keep the public pool from being stolen and depleted, then the only solution is to staking the entire public pool and all proceeds.Staking rewards will permanently and completely solve the issue of filling the public pool.Staking a public pool will allow for an unlimited time to finance any necessary projects and developments.
[Staking a public pool will allow for an unlimited time to finance any necessary projects and developments.](https://Staking a public pool will allow for an unlimited time to finance any necessary projects and developments.)

There are two main issues that I see to this:

  1. Finding multi signers might be an issue every time there is a new project to be funded. Right now, signers for the multi-sig wallet are not available. It has legal and financial implications for anyone gaining access to funds that do not belong to them specifically, especially validators who sometimes have to file taxes, etc

  2. Validators might not want to take up this responsibility cause of obvious reasons - if the funds are misappropriated by them (by mistake), then they will be at a loss and will have to pay back that money to CP

I believe you can work more on this idea since it’s absolutely necessary to have some type of oversight for the entire community, and in this, I agree with you completely.

  1. this is overcome by offering compensation for acting as an independent multi-sig signer, I think there are numerous good validators who would perform this service & do so in a faithful manner.
  2. I do think validators especially large ones who have validated on-chain for a long time would be likely to give the funds to themselves. I really just don’t see that happening but it is of course a possibility which is why I mentioned it.

@ek826 what is your opinion on this?


How is this different form Alex initial discussion about the multi-sig assets and signees??