[DAO:a005416] DAO Committee Deprecation & Replacement

Governance
10

Rizk, you seem to be very out of the loop of how things work:

  1. No, this proposal changes the owners of the Ethereum Multisig and the Polygon Multisig, which hold less than 2M MANA tokens.

  2. No, the Treasury is held by the Aragon Agent, who is also the beneficiary of the Vesting. The Aragon Agent can be commanded by the SAB only, and there are three people (HP, CEO and former-CTO) who can do withdrawals, with no cap limit, and a 24 hours timelock. This setup has been like this for a long time, and is not changed by this proposal (although I think we SHOULD revisit it soon, because the three signers with unlimited withdrawals is a huge risk).

  3. LOL WHAT NOW? No. Only the SAB can command the agent to revoke or change ownership of the vesting contract. The Ethereum or Polygon multisigs are not connected to the Vesting or the agent in any way.
    Edit: I just checked and the owner of the Vesting contract has self-destructed, so neither the SAB, nor Esteban, not even Vitalik himself can revoke that vesting now.

  4. There was a proposal for the compensation of the Council members set at $1k/m. Changing that would require another proposal. The Council members salary come from the Polygon multsig. We propose this multisig to have 5 members, only 2 council members. And the designated operator will have an allowance that limits how much access they have to the funds in that multisig. So “they can pay themselves whatever they want” would need collusion between Council, SAB, Foundation and the 5th signer, which at this point I guess neither you, Tobik or HP will volunteer for. Or if the operator went rogue, it wouldn’t have access to the ~$500k in that multisig because of the allowance cap. OTOH, the current setup is DAO committee pays themselves, using a multisig only they control, and they don’t need to collude with third parties in order to access the $500k in that multisig (let alone the $2.5M in the Ethereum one). I ask you, in the current setup, what stops the DAO Committee from “paying themselves whatever they want” besides “trust me bro”?

  5. Are we reading the same proposal? The only payments that the Ethereum and Polygon multisigs will be doing, which are the ones we are talking about modifying in this proposal, are the following:

  6. No, in total the Ethereum + Polygon multisigs hold about $3M in assets at todays prices, which you can check by visiting the links.

And to be honest that last point sparks some questions that now I would like to ask you, since we are talking:

You were very concerned about the ~$1M transfer (in two txs: one and two) that was done from the Regensis/Council Multisig (which was funded by the Executive Arm proposal) to Renegesis Operational Multisig who holds their budget for their 18 month operation. For that they proposed a budget, made a projection, was approved and so far they are sticking to it as far as I can tell by checking their operations on DeBank, since they are public. I’m not arguing that the transparency can still be improved, through reporting and also third party audits, but it’s a start.

Part of the concern was the amount being “too high” compared to expenses or that it was too many months in advance, and that the multisig was not properly setup (it had one owner). Both valid concerns, but so far the expenses seem to be around $70-$80k a month, which matches the budget and projections so far. I’ve only seen you paste screenshots of pieces of etherscan transactions and demanding what are they for, not even actual links, and that’s not how reporting or requesting information works. The other concern which I think is very valid, was that the multisig (not a “private wallet”, whatever that means) was not properly setup, since it had only 1 signer. This has been addressed since.

Screenshot 2025-10-01 at 12.49.41 PM
Screenshot 2025-10-01 at 12.49.41 PM1474×1014 140 KB

Now, lets review the actual status of the DAO Committee:

  1. It currently holds $3M in assets (Ethereum + Polygon), and since the grants programs stopped, the expenses are around $12k a month, so that’s years of operational costs in the multisigs.

  2. Largely those assets come from the Treasury (like this or that, which you know because you executed them), they were converted from MANA to ETH using CoWSwap, but they were never sent back to the Treasury? :thinking:.

  3. Before CoWSwap, the DAO Committee used to swap MANA to stables by sending it to their personal wallets and swapping it on 1inch, and no one ever raised concerns about those ‘private wallets’.

So in the end these things make me question your good faith, it seems like you have double standards when it comes to taking accountability. Adding on top of that, in the last few weeks since I joined I saw you weaponize the DAO discord and the TownHall to spread your propaganda, create an ‘us vs them’ narrative, then when people actually show up to answer questions, you don’t upload the video and argue that ‘nobody missed anything’ since it didn’t fit your agenda. I don’t blame you guys for the current state of things, which can be improved a lot, but I do for not wanting to change them. We can do better.

And this proposal does not address the Aragon Agent issues, but expect one coming soon to start thinking about that (super legacy, probably you can count with your fingers how many people understand how it’s set up, it’s also a set of +10 contracts to achieve the same as a regular Safe could do for the SAB. It has 3 outdated signers with unlimited access to the Treasury if the SAB sleeps for one day, and I could keep going). So if you are really concerned about the DAO and the current risks, I would love to keep the conversation going then, since it seems like all your concerns have nothing to do with this proposal.

EDIT: formatting.

3 Likes