In this discussion, governance experts Andrew Hall, Eddy Lazzarin, 0xShuel, and smc90 delve into the nuances of governance attacks, focusing on a recent incident involving Compound. They tackle the fine line between legitimate and malicious voting in decentralized networks. The conversation also explores strategies to prevent governance manipulation, emphasizing the differences between on-chain and traditional political systems. They propose innovative solutions to enhance participation and decision-making within decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), fostering both transparency and community trust.
The Compound governance incident highlighted the vulnerability of DAOs to manipulation through strategies like voter fatigue and opaque proposal processes.
Community engagement and transparent communication emerged as vital factors to rebuild trust among token holders after governance attack events.
Proposed governance model changes, including stricter proposal regulations and multisig oversight, aim to enhance security and efficiency in decision-making within DAOs.
Deep dives
Overview of the Governance Attack
A governance incident occurred within Compound Finance, initiated by a persona named Humpy, who proposed moving a significant amount of Compound tokens to a multisig wallet controlled by an unknown entity called the Golden Boys. The first two proposals were overwhelmingly defeated, but the third proposal surprisingly passed just before the voting deadline when Humpy revealed several wallets totaling approximately 682,000 votes. This raised concerns about Humpy gaining substantial control over Compound's governance. Although the proposal sought to enhance staking rewards, many in the governance community perceived the event as a potential manipulation of the governance system.
The Nature of DAO Governance Attacks
The discussion highlighted the variety of governance attacks possible within Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), categorizing them into overt and covert actions. The lack of communication and the opaque processes surrounding Humpy's proposal contributed to rising distrust among token holders, as well as a failure to adequately socialize the proposal before voting. Participants in Compound governance were reminded of historical governance issues where proposals were repeatedly introduced to exploit voter fatigue, a tactic reminiscent of political maneuvers seen in various legislative bodies. This incident underscored the importance of transparency and community engagement in governance, as many in the community felt blindsided by Humpy's sudden push for power.
Engaging with Dissent and Conflict Resolution
Following the unexpected passing of the proposal, Compound delegates quickly organized to strategize a response and prevent a potential takeover of the governance system. Delegates formed communication channels to engage with Humpy and explore the rationale behind his actions while simultaneously drafting defensive proposals to limit Humpy's newfound voting power. This collaborative effort led to a dialogue characterized by a mix of caution and curiosity regarding Humpy's intentions, which oscillated between genuine interest in economic reforms and potential nefarious motives. Ultimately, Humpy decided to cancel the contentious proposal, a move interpreted as a sign of good faith amidst the tumult.
Procedural Suggestions for Future Governance
In light of the incident, various participants proposed potential governance model changes that could minimize the risk of similar events reoccurring in the future. Suggestions included implementing stricter regulations on how frequently proposals can be submitted and experimenting with vote timing to discourage late ballot revelations that could skew outcomes. The importance of linking governance proposals to overall treasury sustainability and economic viability was also emphasized, with the idea of introducing a system where token holders would need to stake tokens to bring proposals to the table. These discussions illustrated a significant transition towards refining governance protocols to foster both transparency and efficiency within the DAO.
The Role of Multi-Signature Wallets in Governance
The incident shed light on the critical function of multisig wallets in maintaining governance checks and balances within DAOs. Multisigs require multiple approvals to execute transactions, thereby adding a layer of security and communal oversight. Humpy's proposals involved transferring tokens to a multisig controlled by an unidentified group, raising questions about the legitimacy and diversity of its signatories. In response, Compound delegates considered emplacing a multisig structure that would oversee governance decisions, aiming to regain control and protect against any single entity consolidating power or executing harmful transactions.
with @ahall_research @eddylazzarin @0xShuel @smc90
In this episode, we cover both recent events + evergreen governance questions in political systems: Specifically, we breakdown the recent Compound “governance attack”... as well as the broader topic of DAO governance and voting in general. We also discuss how to avoid, prevent, and respond to such governance attacks -- highlighting key differences between on-chain/ token-based/ digital voting systems vs. physical-world political systems around the world.
What happens when you have activity from actors that the majority doesn’t necessarily agree with? How do you distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith activity, especially on-chain? And other such tricky questions?? Our experts answering these questions (in conversation with Sonal Chokshi) include:
- a16z crypto CTO Eddy Lazzarin; - head of network operations Ross Shuel; - and a16z crypto research collaborator, and Stanford professor of political science, Andrew Hall.
The episode begins by quickly recapping the exact sequence of a recent Compound governance “attack” event a few weeks ago -- including discussing whether “governance attack” is the right label for it or not; how it’s different from other attacks; and the broader trend of online vs offline governance attacks in general -- before then going into specific solutions. The team also shares some behind-scenes tick tock on what happened, how people figure out motives behind actions on-chain (especially given the "indistinguishability problem"), and much more.
Pieces mentioned in this episode and other resources:
As a reminder: None of this should be taken as business, investment, legal, or tax advice; please see a16z.com/disclosures for more important information -- including a link to a list of our investments.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode