by 0xffac7fd045303112fdb28e9dace8e1334ad324c0 (eordano)
Adding a member to the Committee strictly increases the security of the DAO. Particularly, since we have 5 good candidates for the role, add 3 new members to the DAO Committee.
The DAO Committee is a group of 3 semi-trusted individuals who have been selected by the community to hold keys in a multi-signature wallet and other mechanisms to enact decisions on the DAO. This group is responsible for enacting any passed votes with a binding action, like funding a Grant, banning a name, adding or removing a POI, implementing a Governance proposal or adding a Catalyst node. Currently, since Eric resigned, the group is conformed by only 2 individuals.
Particularly, with the current required-consensus setup, the collusion of these two members is enough to drain the DAO’s treasury in case the Security Advisory Board (SAB) fails to react in less than 24 hours (according to this blogpost, there was a 4 hour lead time last time it was needed).
Today, any member of the Committee can cancel a transaction initiated by another member on the On-Chain Aragon DAO. That means, that full collusion of the whole group is required to empty the wallet, if everyone is aware of the votes being submitted, in a security scheme also named “anytrust”, meaning that “one honest participant is enough to prevent collusion”. In other words, adding a member strictly increases security. I trust Yemel and HPrivakos a lot, but this trust is unnecessary. If the SAB fails to act in time, and one of them is on a Vipassana retreat, anyone with access to the private key of the other member (maybe a cyber threat actor) can swipe the ~17M USD from the DAO.
The only caveat I see to adding more members is that any one member can block all the other members from the Committee from enacting transactions, but that is less critical – the DAO can decide to remove this member so operations can continue.
Additionally, the SAB is in charge of enacting these changes on the Committee, which I think is an error. I see the SAB as one half “special forces”, and one half “wise judges” – in any case, they should not be bothered with any day-to-day activities. In my lousy analogy of SAB as “judges/military”, having them adding or removing a Committee member is the equivalent of putting some special forces military team in charge of organizing a normal democratic election, and putting judges in charge of execution of presidential transition ceremonies. It is my opinion that the SAB should only concern itself with providing emergency solutions to bugs and problems with smart contracts.
We currently have 5 candidates for the position of DAO Committee Member: AwedJob, Tobik, Martriay, Szjanko and Champ. I think we could pick 3 from this list, not only 1.
Looking forwards to the future, our DAO should:
- improve the agility and ergonomics of the governance processes
- reduce burden on DAO Committee members
- not involve the SAB in day-to-day activities
- reduce the trust required in particular individuals
- Yes: add 3 new DAO Committee members
- No: add only 1 new DAO Committee Member
- Invalid question/options
Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO