✅ [RFC] mStableDAO Restructure Proposal

  • proposal is for all signers to be elected
  • really like BuilderDAO!
  • The productDAO as the full time builders, whereas the protocolDAO are the technical guardians. The productDAO is about innovation and pushing mStable forward. Would be interested to look into how they overlap.
  • @soulsby can you respond to this one
  • Likewise here.

Thanks @dimsome !

Thanks a lot for this detailed and thorough proposal @soulsby @mZeroNine

General feedback

  • I’m really aligned with what’s written here. It makes a lot of sense to streamline the operations of the project by improving the DAO/SubDAO structure and empowering existing/new signers in their mandates.

  • Proposing a constant allocation in MTA to contributors vs. an off-the-shelf model is the easiest one to implement, bootstrap and operate. Also, this $1000 amount is very coherent with the project size (TVL + Size of Treasury) if you use Synthetix as a proxy.

  • Riffing on @trustindistrust point, a good way to justify this “universal income” beyond general signing requirements, could be very specific tasks identified by the community and presented on dashboards like Dework. I’m not sure it would work for every DAO/subDAO but it’s definitely a nice to consider in the medium run

  • Having a Product SubDAO (Builder DAO) and Ecosystem SubDAO would make the structure very lean. SubDAOs should be self-sufficient (apart from public goods). SubDAOs are small independent units funded by the Treasury DAO every epoch and should manage their spending

  • About the process: using bespoke channels in Discord (i.e BuilderDAO application, Treasury DAO applications, etc) to have people introduce their candidacy and have active discussions could be a good thing to pair with a definitive forum post. Would love to hear @Fungus opinion on this.

Nota Bene
Imo, the purpose of this RFC is to get general feedback on the structure. The specifics (Exact election process and details, SubDAOs precise mandate and signers, etc) will be tackled in a series of TDPs covering precise sections

I’m really looking forward to seeing this proposal turned into a new chapter for mStable governance :rocket:

Thanks everyone for your great feedback and input on this RFC!

A few things that were previously hinted at, we would like to move forward with the first TDP for this soon, and this will require a basic consensus to be formed. Please let us know if you do NOT agree with this process of splitting and overall restructuring, as otherwise we will assume that a basic consensus has been found, and the first portion of this RFC will be turned into a TDP next week!

I’m not sure if all assets can easily be transferred back to the TreasuryDAO in the short term or if some are locked up (maybe @mZeroNine can confirm)

This will be an ongoing process if successful. Some assets are easily moved, as they are an ERC-20, other assets have lockup times and will be moved after the lock expires (CVX is a great example)

Regarding Elections

We found consensus yesterday in an internal call to create separate posts for the elections. Regarding the elections themselves, and to answer the question raised by @dimsome, all seats will be up for elections, and there will be no more differentiation between “core team” and “core community” “independent signers” or “ecosystem participants”.

We have a single role “core contributor” (final name tbd) which will take up each and every seat. We will also hold re-elections on a half-yearly basis during which every seat will be up again for being taken. Of course, existing core contributors can be re-elected into the same seats.

Each election thread will have exacts, but @soulsby already showed a few basics below, so it’s a good starting point to get the discussion going here.

Regarding Responsibilities

As Cam already hinted at, this can be creating txs, but a normal signer seat will NOT be performing this, as the responsibility and coordination needs to be adhered to by the Cat Herder and Ops Signer (final title tbc, but it’s an add-on role to the normal signer role and not everyone will be doing this) .

That’s only an example of an additional task that will be compensated on top of the core responsibilities. A much clearer picture will be painted in the actual signer election posts, which will highlight this in great detail. I’ll hopefully be able to post a draft of this together with @soulsby in the coming 2 weeks to present here in this RFC for input and feedback by you all! Extra input in the meantime is of course deeply appreciated!

DeWork will play a role in this, but it’s important to note that every core contributor will have a set of jobs as a baseline, and then additional workloads are handled via ad-hoc on DeWork (DeWork will be implemented gradually into the entire workflow, but we want to keep it agile, so initial rollouts can happen swiftly without the need to ratify via DeWork).

Regarding Cross-signers

As Cam said already, in a perfect world there will be no cross-DAO signers, but it will depend on the actual elections to see how many people are interested. It might be a process that will take place over multiple elections, but I think we all agree in a perfect world there would be individual signers in each of the 2 DAOs to maximize decentralization.

Regarding @dimsome’s queries

A lot was answered already, but I want to highlight that it’s important to decentralize the working entity from the ProtocolDAO and that’s the reason we want to create a 2nd entity. While it is probably going to be overlapping in the beginning, the goal is to have a lot more diversity in the ProtocolDAO and move away from having the Product subDAO (BuilderDAO) own a majority vote in the ProtocolDAO for decentralization purposes. The rest is exactly as @james.simpson has said already.

SubDAOS are independent working committees and can elect participants themselves, without the need for Meta Governors to ratify. What will be ratified via governance is the funding of these subDAO entities. This will drastically improve agility and decentralization of the DAO overall, and give subDAOs the opportunity and possibility to actually be autonomous - just what a DAO should be.

Agreed regarding the GrantsDAO point, and this will be tackled in detail in a resulting TDP from this (the idea is that we’ll create three or 4 TDPs from this RFC, to be able to get explicit voting results from each point, and run several discussions in parallel).

Regarding Next Steps

As hinted at previously, it is important we move forward. While I know there’s still a LOT of open questions, I’d suggest we are able to move the first TDP forward early next week on the overall restructuring of the DAO.

This TDP will ONLY tackle the overall restructuring, so we can continue to discuss subDAOS, Elections, Compensations and other things here as we’re moving that part forward.

So if everyone is ok on a fundamental level with the restructuring in general, and there are no objections, I’ll begin crafting TDP 44.1 for next Tuesday or Wednesday the latest.

Exact details on this and further discussion about the restructuring of the mStableDAO should then only happy in TDP 44.1, given we are all ok to move forward.

Please continue to discuss all the other points not relating to the fundamental restructure here, and we’ll probably tackle TDP 44.2 next, which is concerning the elections. Election Process, duration, re-elections, and so forth…

Thanks again everyone for your great input, and for tackling this behemoth of a RFC together! :sunglasses: :facepunch:


Thanks @mZeroNine , very supportive of creating multiple TDPs from this proposal to allow parallel discussion of the separate important topics.


Loooks goood to me. :grinning:

1 Like

gm everyone!

TDP 44: mStableDAO Restructure is now live in the forum, and I invite each one of you to have a read through this proposal and funnel and channel all related questions there from now on.

In this RFC, we should now be focusing on the upcoming crafting of TDP 45 concerning the election process for the restructuring, I’ll quickly summarize the findings of this thread, so we can focus this week on discussing this in greater detail as to be able to find consensus and be able to craft a successful TDP for next week:

Summary of the Election Process so far

  • Create a standardized election process for signers of the ProtocolDAO and TreasuryDAO and pave the way for the first round of signer elections to be held immediately following resolution of this proposal.

  • Both the ProtocolDAO and the TreasuryDAO are to operate under a 4/6 signer structure and each signer be elected under a universal contributor title with the same compensation

  • It is proposed that an open nomination process be held in the mStable Forum or Discord, allowing current contributors and community members to nominate themselves as signers for the ProtocolDAO or TreasuryDAO. There would then be a governance vote to decide the signers for each DAO.

  • It is suggested that signer elections take place every 6 months.

  • The election process will commence upon resolution of TDP 45 and threads be posted in the mStable Forum and Discord to kick the process off

  • We would discuss here the compensation, expectation, and responsibilities of a universal core contributor. Any additional tasks to this are not to be discussed here now, but part of the compensation TDP and the subsequent DeWork attachment

  • Cross-DAO signers are not an encouraged theme, but tolerated for now

  • A universal basic signer compensation of $1000 mUSD worth in MTA is proposed, with the MTA price re-calculated on a quarterly basis to ensure a fair compensation over time

  • It is suggested to let the elections run for 2 weeks before we move them to Snapshot, and have the Snapshot take place for 5 days as usual.

I think this is everything from above. If anyone sees something that I’ve missed, please let me know, and I’ll add it to this post!

We now should focus on specific details and points that make up the heart and soul of TDP 45 and everyone is invited to contribute to this in the coming days to come and find consensus on how the multisig signers are to be elected and compensated in greater detail.

With all of the above in mind, I’ll spend a day later in the week to craft something that could resemble a preliminary TDP which we can all add things to and from given we find consensus quickly, but I would hope to get more feedback on the overall process and ideation here before we do that, so we don’t just simply sign off on some procured work from someone else.

1 Like

First off, there has been some extremely thorough and thoughtful discourse here. I really appreciate everyone’s hard work and involvement on such an important endeavor.

Going along with previous discussions outside the forum, I’ll reiterate here that I fully support this DAO restructure and believe it will deliver the intended value we seek.

Responding to @trustindistrust: @mZeroNine hit on some great points about Dework’s role. There is still plenty to discuss here, but my current thoughts on Dework is that each subDAO in particular will effectively manage their own portions of the bounty board themselves, all under the same mStable application page. I have been in regular contact with the Dework team to ensure this type of organization is both possible and efficient through their platform and fortunately it is. I can serve as the point of contact for any Dework concerns as we get everyone up to speed on how best to utilize it.

As @mZeroNine stated, it’ll be imperative to define as objectively as possible the roles of core contributors. Once done, the subDAO’s can identify extra ad hoc work that ought to be outsourced, determine a fair bounty price with their respective funding constraints, and then post, assign tasks, review submitted tasks, and initiate bounty payments.

@TClochard I think that’s a great idea. We can create some channels for the Builder subDAO, Ecosystem subDAO etc., for community members to ask questions and converse about the new structure, announce any candidacies, and eventually discuss ongoing and upcoming tasks.

Optimistic about this initiative!

1 Like

Thanks a lot for your summary @mZeroNine.

I’ll add some additional thoughts around the election process prior to TDP 45:

I understand that if TDP 45 resolves successfully we should be in a position to start the signer election process immediately. Therefore, basic signer responsibilities and compensation should be agreed upon in this TDP.

Based on previous discussions with some of the core team, I think minimum expectations of all signers should include:

1.) Be available to confirm multi-sig transactions within a 24 hour time window except in rare circumstances, which should be communicated to the DAO.

2.) Spend at least 10 hours per month on the official mStable governance forums to participate in Meta Governance discussions

3.) Spend at least 10 hours per month in the official mStable Discord and meaningfully contribute to the ecosystem, whether that be participating in governance-related discussions or just engaging with the community

4.) Be available and willing to participate actively in monthly TreasuryDAO & Governance Signer Calls (EU or similar time zone preferred. Perhaps we should even set regular times in advance so that candidates can ensure that they will be available?)

5.) Have a solid understanding of good OpSec practices, perhaps including a requirement to use a hardware wallet as a signer address?

6.) Additionally, TreasuryDAO signers should have a sound understanding of DeFi, keep themselves updated on developments and emerging technologies, and be able to read and understand queued multi-sig transactions and their expected behaviour. ProtocolDAO signers should have a sound understanding of Solidity, smart contract interactions, and other relevant skills.

We should also consider if there are any specific requirements around to meet around reputation. Eg. how should risks around anon signers and potential collusion be minimised?

Do others think that these requirements seem fair considering ~$1000 worth of MTA monthly as compensation? Alternatively, the compensation could be reduced slightly with a reduced expectation on time spent in the forum/Discord. This could be worth exploring to reduce the overall cost to the project, especially given current market conditions.

I think the points outlined above are fine. I’m concerned with how to track “hours of engagement” (let’s call it). If we agree it’s a soft requirement, it will likely be abused/ignored. If we agree it’s a hard requirement, there has to be a mechanism to track it. I’m not aware of any way to do this, in Discord or here on the forum.

On top of that, in order to make it a requirement, there has to be something that happens if someone fails to meet it.

With that in mind, I think that the engagement stuff can only be a soft requirement. Booting a signer (who otherwise signs everything well inside the 24hr window and doesn’t need constant nannying) for not talking much on Discord seems unnecessarily disruptive.

Otherwise, I think possessing a hardware signer should be a firm requirement. This is easy for me to say because I have one, but I feel pretty strongly on this point. For anyone asked to sign cross-DAO, I think two devices should be mandatory.

Good points @trustindistrust. I have mixed feelings about bundling signer responsibilities with required engagement on forums in general, but it does seem like a positive way to encourage participation and input from a group of well respected community members. Agree that it would be more of a soft requirement, just to give people an idea of expectations. In saying that, Karma ratings could be a good way to gauge overall participation in a quantitative way, and this could be useful when considering re-election of signers or even ejection of underperforming signers.

Excellent points from both sides.

I think the 10 hours/month for both Discord and Forum is to incentivize participation. Of course we’re not going to track if you spend 10 hours per month across these two platforms, but since we’re working on them daily, it’s easy to spot who spends zero time, and who is engaged here and there.

Thinking of this as some sort of goal to strife towards, and if it ends up being 5 hours, nobody will hang, but the non-participation on either platforms as a core contributor is definitely no longer happening.

I see it as a gentleman’s agreement to participate in the best way you can across the month, and if no involvement happens at all, then the DAO will have a problem, otherwise it’ll all be gucci.

Please remember that if everyone signs within the 24 hours but stays otherwise outside of any governance in mStable, we’re simply re-creating the old structure, but under a new hood.

We do not encourage nor wish anyone to sign up to simply sign transactions. You also wouldn’t want to hire an office worker to simply have him or her boot up their computer once per day and check the emails to find open docusign contracts to sign, sign them, and log off again for the rest of the day :sweat_smile:

hi everyone and Happy Friday! :innocent:

TDP 45 has successfully made it onto the forums, and please be so kind as to redirect any further election-related comments and feedback there!

From here on, we will use this RFC thread to Discuss the consolidation of the GrantsDAO and the Community subDAO in preparation for TDP 46.

As most of you know my stance towards this movement, I’ll spare you any redundant comments, and hope that we can get an exciting talk going regard this, similar to the previous 2 sessions!

Many thanks to all for their continued feedback and support, and wishing you a great start into this weekend! :sunglasses: :+1:

Thanks @mZeroNine . To kick of the discussion around the consolidation of the Community subDAO and GrantsDAO, I’ll share some thoughts:

  • As @mZeroNine hinted at, this topic was raised previously but not pursued due to a lack of consensus in the forum and Governance call.
  • I think it is well worth reviewing now in the context of the wider review of the DAO structure and processes, and also in light of the 1st year of approved GrantsDAO funding coming to an end.
  • This should be a chance to review how the mStable Grants program has performed and what changes should be made going forward, as well as the benefits of consolidating these entities.

My Opinions

  • Given the current MTA price and the limits that puts on funding, mStable should be conservative with spending on grants in general

  • Grants funded at this time should show promise of a clear return on investment to the protocol (ie. more of an investment that a grant)

  • For any related products or features built through grants, there should be clear communication with core mStable contributors to ensure that code can be maintained and offer long-term value.

  • I do see value in combining the current GrantsDAO with the current Community subDAO. While there would be some additional overhead in accounting for separate budgets for different use-cases, I think this would be outweighed by the gains from maintaining only a single entity and signer group.

  • We should discuss how signers for the consolidated entity would be selected and considerations for putting together a funding proposal

  • There was some internal discussion on the name of a consolidated entity. Eg. Ecosystem subDAO, Growth subDAO. Perhaps some more suggestions and another poll could help resolve this.

1 Like

I’m in favor of a consolidation. I feel like providing grants is a form of community outreach.

It should be made explicit that @stonp89 will not be resuming his role as the cat-herder. So naturally the question is “does the consolidated structure require a second position? Or does it all fall on the cat-herder for the community DAO?”

For a name, honestly I’m fine with just retaining CommunityDAO. Not least because we bought mstablecommunity.eth and it would be kinda silly to buy something else (although I guess ETH is cheap right now).

I don’t have anything in particular to add about signers. I was asked if I wanted to write stuff (which didn’t end up happening for various reasons) and then it was just convenient for me to volunteer to be a voter/signer. I’m not sure how the signer pool was originally constructed for the GrantsDAO to begin with.


Just voted for this. You all are paving the way to help define DAOs and sub-DAOs.

Well done.

Many thanks for the feedback everyone!

So, from the basic consensus here in the forum it seems that we can pretty much go ahead with the creation of TDP 46 and discuss all other relevant topics there.

Unless someone felt very strongly about this, I’ll go ahead and draft this up for posting in the forum on Friday!

Wishing you a successful start in the day, and thanks everyone for participating in mStable Governance! :sunglasses: :facepunch:

1 Like

Thanks @mZeroNine .

I’ll just note that we should be clear on the timing around when the roles and responsibilities of current GrantsDAO signers should finish up. Given that there are some outstanding matters to resolve there, perhaps signers who receive compensation there should be paid for one or two more weeks, the the multisig officially shut down from mid-July? This should allow a handover period to settle outstanding commitments and build GrantsDAO responsibilities into the Funding Proposal for the new entity.

I’m sure there is plenty more discussion to be had on how the grants program should run and learnings from the last year, but this can be discussed in the TDP post and detailed in the 1st funding proposal for the new entity.

1 Like

I agree with you. I think all of these merging discussions should be part of the funding proposal. If we included them in TDP 46, it will become quite murky in terms of consolidaton vs ways to consolidate.

If we separated them from each other, then we know clearly if Meta Governors wish a consolidation, and then in the actual Funding Request we can discuss the rollout and migration in great detail. What do you think?

1 Like

Happy Monday everyone!

With TDP 46 moved towards a TDP, let’s focus our energy for the next 2 weeks on the overall compensation model & Funding Request Framework for the mStableDAO moving forward (excluding the 1000mUSD/month for the basic signer role).

This discussion should be quite extensive and rich, so I’ve given 2 weeks for this, also based on internal feedback and overall volume and workloads.

In detail, we should find consensus on:

  • Compensation and possible internal election of the Cat Herder of the mStableDAO
  • Compensation and possible internal election for the Ops Signer Roles (the people that queue up transactions on behalf of the TreasuryDAO & ProtocolDAO)
  • Overall Framework on how a subDAO will apply to the mStableDAO for Funding, including overall strategy, timeframe, way of funding (Stream, Upfront etc…), Proof of Work (Milestones, Deliverables, Supervision, Quality Assurance, Quality Control)
  • Anything else we can think of relevant to TDP 47!
1 Like

Thanks Steph. The biggest open question for me is who should be tasked with taking on extra responsibilities around queuing transactions, and what additional compensation should they recieve.

For the ProtocolDAO, it likely makes sense that the 2 signers elected from the Builder subDAO take on this role, as that was the reason for ensuring that there was representation from core devs, right?

For the TreasuryDAO, I think any signers could potentially take on these responsibilities. Perhaps an internal decision within the signer group would be sufficient. There should probably be two signers sharing this role to give some redundancy.

In terms of compensation, I’m not sure exactly what amount is appropriate, but an important question is how this is considered alongside regular compensation for signers who are also full-time contributors. My personal view is that contributors’ overall pay package shouldn’t increase unless they are explicitly taking on these duties outside of regular work hours.

Interested to hear other views here, keeping in mind the impact on overall expenditure if compensation is additive to regular salaries.

1 Like