$CREAM MetaGovernance Delegation

[Kiba]

IIP: [to be assigned]
Title: CREAM MetaGovernance Delegation
Status: Proposed
Author(s): @kiba, @reganbozman
Discussions-to:
Created: 2021-05-06

Summary

This IIP requests authorization to delegate Snapshot voting power in the Defi Pulse Index to 0x6B1050C1C6B288C79Ac1db299Dc481048aBBBbcD via the GovernanceModule for Kiba and Regan to use.

Description

Snapshot is not compatible with multisig smart contracts, and therefore requires an EOA account to execute votes. The community retains the ability to revoke or reassign the delegation as needed.

As of last month CREAM has been added to DPI. CREAM is currently the only lending platform that supports DPI and they are known for listing the most cutting edge assets in DeFi on their platform. There are a ton of ways that we can collaborate with them to improve Index Coop products. A couple examples I’ve given in the past are adding DPI/ETH LP tokens to CREAM market providing more utility to LPs, using Iron Bank to mint liquidity for new products so we don’t need to fuck around with liquidity mining programs, and using Iron Bank to allow higher leverage FLI products.

By delegating CREAM voting power to Regan and I, Index Coop can be more active in CREAM governance and use their platform to improve our product moats to be unforkable.

0x6B1050C1C6B288C79Ac1db299Dc481048aBBBbcD is a wallet controlled by Kiba (same wallet he receives INDEX contributor rewards to) in coordination with Regan that will act as the executor for CREAM meta-governance votes in accordance to the goals laid out in this proposal.

Meta-Governance Goals

To date almost all of CREAM’s votes have been about listing an asset or changing collateral ratio which is being entirely offloaded from governance onto the listing team. This is a great opportunity to start shifting focus of CREAM governance to protocol improvements, community engagement, and long term value creation.

Priorities:

• Liquidity of stable assets e.g. USDC and RAI
• Grow CREAM community and their ability to control the protocol and offload work from core team (e.g. Creamery by Regan, Listing Team by Kiba)
• CREAM adoption (e.g. documentation, branding, memes, product design)
• Iron Bank adoption and it’s moat in DeFi

CREAM Meta-Governance Process

1. Vote is created on CREAM Snapshot
2. Regan and Kiba deliberate
3. Once consensus is reached vote is submitted by 0x6B1050C1C6B288C79Ac1db299Dc481048aBBBbcD

To reiterate: this proposal will give full decision making power to Kiba and Regan, INDEX holders will not vote on CREAM meta-governance. Given low turnout for metagovernance on major protocols like Compound and Aave, we see this autonomous structure as an advantage for Index Coop metagovernance considering our active contributions in the protocol already.

Why autonomous decisions:

• We have both been very active in CREAM community and governance so have good knowledge base and relationships to leverage for Index Coop in metagovernance. Kiba proposed the first vote on CREAM governance and has helped a number of protocols get listed on the platform (including DPI)
• Kiba (maybe Regan too) are part of the CREAM listing team which, once enacted, will work directly with the core team and be able to list new assets on CREAM markets without going through governance. Through our role on the listing team we may have access to private information from CREAM core team that can influence decision making on votes but cannot be shared with other Coop members.
• Gives us ability to make our own proposals to CREAM on behalf of Index Coop which isn’t possible with normal metagovernance process.
• CREAM is fairly undocumented and underground protocol. Even as one of the most active community members it’s hard for me to know what’s going on because the information just isn’t available. For example I asked how we could enable flashloans and the feature was released just days later and had been worked on for months. Maybe I missed some messages in their discord but for such a major feature to fly under the radar of someone like me proves how hard it is to keep track of CREAM. Having access to founders will improve the Coops governance.

Compensation

@Lavi suggested we request compensation to set a precedent for other people doing metagovernance work to be paid as well.

We think $1,000 a month per MetaGovernor is reasonable enough to compensate for time, energy, and opportunity cost.

FOR

• Delegate Snapshot voting power from the DPI to 0x6B1050C1C6B288C79Ac1db299Dc481048aBBBbcD for metagovernance vote execution and compensate CREAM MetaGovernors $1,000 per month

AGAINST

• Do not delegate Snapshot voting power from the DPI to 0x6B1050C1C6B288C79Ac1db299Dc481048aBBBbcD for metagovernance vote execution

[ncitron]

I think personally, I would vote no to this proposal.

Let’s start with some of the technical challenges. To start, Cream does not have the delegation strategy enabled in their Snapshot space. This means that we cannot currently delegate our Cream votes. Additionally, the SnapshotGovernanceAdapter does not allow you to delegate on a per-protocol basis, meaning we would have to delegate all (which currently includes YFI and BAL) voting power to your address.

From a non-technical perspective, I think metagovernance is a core value proposition for the coop as a whole, as well as for the INDEX token specifically. By establishing the precedent that voting may be done by committee, I think we hurt that value proposition. Finally, I think we should take our role as metagovernors incredibly seriously, which is why the currently delegated EOA is custodied by the Set team, who use their world-class experience to ensure that this key is custodied in a safe and effective manner. Delegating these votes to a normal metamask account that exists on someone’s personal computer would be a massive security risk.

[Kiba]

Delegate Address

My bad, I assumed we could delegate per space since Snapshot enables that functionality. Getting delegation strategy added can be done easily if Coop wants to move forward with this, CREAM hasn’t had the need yet but we are updating governance params anyway so can slide in with other updates. Is your governance bot open-source so I can figure out a way to add multiple sources for vote decisions?

Committees

Sub-committees is how almost every part of the Coop is run already. I gave some reasons why this model is suited specifically for metagovernance in the original IIP post - IIP-8 Meta Governance Module - #2 by Kiba.

@dylan

We have the Treasury Committee structured similarly for some of the same reasons. Having a fairly autonomous sub committee subject to checks and balances makes it much simpler to interface with the coop as a third party. We’ve seen similar sub committees when interfacing with Maker DAO for example.

We have so much voter apathy that we are trying to pay people to vote. Even then they say sub-committees are a good option to consider over INDEX holders

@DarkForestCapital

Governance structure including committee/council/delegates to have the most motivated and closest to the project accrue voting power

Wallet Security

@ncitron

Delegating these votes to a normal metamask account that exists on someone’s personal computer would be a massive security risk

Lol definitely not holding 5k INDEX tokens on metamask. I have multiple hardware wallets of which this is my designated “governance wallet” for the most recent DAOs I joined. Most people would agree a hardware wallet is more secure than a hot wallet (which I assume your bot is using). Moot point either way since not possible to have multiple wallets (yet).

[anon10525910]

I’d vote against this as well under my current understanding of this proposal.

This seems to be proposing a non-trivial departure from how the Index Coop does metagovernance today from INDEX Holders decide to Individuals decide.

Given that, it seems like a higher-level strategy outlining your vision would be an important precursor to a decision on a single protocol.

Can you two share your larger vision & why this proposed change of direction is a net-positive for INDEX stakeholders?

Two side notes

• This is not to say that metagov is perfect today. Luckily, folks are indeed focusing on it i.e. Framework for Meta-Governance
• I wonder what other ways the Coop community can support you and Regan in your CREAM endeavors, be more active in CREAM governance, and deepen that relationship.

[verto0912]

I think doing this on a project-by-project basis is not scalable and doesn’t quite work for reasons brought up above.

Having a meta-gov committee that gets elected every 3 months, and has the voting power for meta-gov is a better solution imo. The committee can bring in experts from different communities to guide their decision-making as well as put forward proposals on the underlying if it thinks they will benefit DPI (and MVI) holders.

[Kiba]

By high-level strategy and how this benefits INDEX holder do you mean CREAM metagovernance directly (like " “Principles Over Rules” in MetaGov Framework ) or Index Coop <> CREAM collabs facilitated through metagovernance (like products I mentioned in IIP description)?

MetaGov Framework includes delegated committees. This structure has been proposed/outlined in almost every metagov doc, we are just the first to create a proposal to implement it. (maybe I should have given more context on this in proposal, assumed everyone was aware of this)

@cedrick

Proxy System

Not all $INDEX holders care about the non-economic benefits of holding the token, and we have an opportunity to provide a means of allowing them to transfer that right to a group who will take the charge seriously. Considerations for discussions:

• Whether to incentivize a proxy election with rewards. Index Coop would be receiving a valued benefit and there’s likely a value-clearing spread between how Index Coop values meta-governance power and passive holders’ indifference.
• This would also allow Index Coop (through a specific meta-governance committee or working group) to exert more influence on meta-governance votes and allow the principle-based voting more room to flourish (and also increase incentive for underlying tokens to coordinate with Index Coop).
• It’s worth noting that there’s some tension with decentralization here, but the idea is to target those holders who do not or would not want to participate in the voting. Still, open to feedback on this point.

@verto0912 so you are in favor of delegation but would prefer a general metagov committee vs specialists for each protocol? Greg and Noah are against delegation at all and would prefer voting remains with INDEX holders (the few that actually vote). I’m down for your suggestion, I just want more app/community specific expertise in metagov so we can actually help our component tokens and integrate IC the best way possible.

[verto0912]

@Kiba

so you are in favor of delegation but would prefer a general metagov committee vs specialists for each protocol?

Correct. The committee could lean on others to help inform their decisions.

@Kiba

Greg and Noah are against delegation at all and would prefer voting remains with INDEX holders (the few that actually vote).

Would love to explore this. Because not meeting quorum shows that we are NOT, in fact, taking our meta-gov responsibility seriously.

@anon10525910

This seems to be proposing a non-trivial departure from how the Index Coop does metagovernance today from INDEX Holders decide to Individuals decide.

The creation of the meta-gov council and individuals on that council, would be decided by INDEX holders via snapshot. Similar the to the SNX Spartan Council. So INDEX holders still decide. The council would be elected on a 3-months basis and, I would suggest, that a vote to dissolve the council could be called in the event that the community no longer has confidence in it. We could also still have INDEX holders vote, but it would be treated as a signalling vote to inform the council’s decision.

I feel pretty strongly that INDEX holders voting on every meta-gov proposal is not the best way to manage our meta-gov responsibility. Governance mining is an option, as it preserves individual’s right to vote and adds delegation to it, but it will cost us quite a lot of money. Meta-gov council + INDEX voting used as a signaling mechanism gives us the same outcome but for a much lower price (and less eng workload).

[cedrick]

I think @ncitron, @anon10525910 and @verto0912 have raised some important points. This is a major departure from our current meta-governance strategy (recognizing that we are actively trying to improve it), beyond the technical issue.

I think in the event the community wants to delegate meta-governance decision-making back to Index Coop, it should do that to a committee which collectively decides all meta-governance votes, rather than delegating that power to specific individuals for each protocol. This was one of the potential ideas floated in the initial meta-gov framework forum post and I believe what @verto0912 is envisioning (electing a council for a specific term).

Given how close @Kiba and @reganbozman are with CREAM, I would propose instead that one or both of you serves as our protocol ambassador for CREAM. As mentioned on the last Org call, I’ve laid out a proposed scope of work here. From what you’ve said, it sounds like you are already doing many of these things. You don’t need to have delegated meta-governance power to work with CREAM on many of the initiatives you outlined in the post, and once CREAM Snapshot meta-governance is unlocked, when meta-gov proposals come in, you can (1) report back to Index Coop any relevant news/updates from CREAM and (2) lobby Index Coop to vote on the proposals you care strongly about.

While we don’t meet quorum on every meta-governance vote, the ones we miss generally are more trivial, general upkeep type votes or votes on tighter-than-usual timelines. If there are CREAM proposals important to the Coop and you both were asking the community to vote, I’m sure the community will be there.

Let me know what you think.

[Lavi]

Hey everyone,
Great discussion that is actually anticipating some things @cedrick and I have been talking about as well. It’s great to see that our thinking is aligned here. However, the difference between a meta-governance group and this proposal (at least how I imagine it) is that, with a meta-gov committee:

• Index holders are left with the decision to keep their vote, or to delegate it to a meta-gov committee,

With this proposal:

• Index holders do not have that choice anymore, as CREAM voting power will be fully delegated

I’m personally in favor for the committee model for now. However, there is still the discussion whether this is actually technically feasible. As far as I understand IIP38, we cannot separate meta-gov from governance voting. Hence, the meta-gov committee would also be given the voting power on non-meta-governance votes (e.g. IIPs). The model proposed here on the other hand, would allow for meta-gov only votes, while index holders keep their voting power on index governance.
Keen to understand whether there are other ways to do this, allowing for delegation plus a separation of meta-gov and non-meta-gov

[Kiba]

@Lavi it’s not possible to delegate INDEX for only metagovernance. Voters could manually manage (un)delegating for each vote if they had enough time to prepare and cared enough (brings us back to voter apathy). I can think of some hacky ways to accomplish it but none I would recommend.

Just threw this together, does this accurately reflect everyone’s ideal scenario? (lines of communication are key for effective metagov)

I’m in favor of any committee structure as it will produce better results than status quo. I fail to see how generalist committee is better than specialist committee. We are separating the people who are most knowledgeable and respected by the protocol from the ones that have power over it. I actually don’t see any value add from generalist committee, seems like ambassador is doing all the heavy lifting anyway so why not cut out the middleman?

Can only speak for myself but I also plan on writing metagov writeups similar to the Investment Committee. I don’t see a generalist group having 1) the knowledge 2) the time 3) or bandwitdth to process metagov feedback to do that for 14 different protocols quarterly/biannually.

My goal is quality > quantity. The Coop shouldn’t scrape by doing the bare minimum on metagovernance, we have an amazing opportunity to shape the entire DeFi space and that requires focused effort and dedication. If you want to frame my proposal in another way what it says is - “I’m willing to give up my governance rights for every other DPI token because I know we can provide so much value specifically at CREAM”. If everyone at the Coop has that approach we will be much better off with specialist committees than generalist ones.

@cedrick

You don’t need to have delegated meta-governance power to work with CREAM on many of the initiatives you outlined in the post, and once CREAM Snapshot meta-governance is unlocked, when meta-gov proposals come in, you can (1) report back to Index Coop any relevant news/updates from CREAM and (2) lobby Index Coop to vote on the proposals you care strongly about.

Sure you dont need tokens to get a proposal passed but it makes it a lot easier. On point (2) that would be doubling the work instead of cutting it in half by having tokens delegated directly. Why make the round trip back to IC to report news that probably no one cares about instead of discussing the news with the people that matter most, that protocol’s community, and acting on it directly on behalf of IC? We would be spending hours of extra time gathering support (from people less knowledgeable) that should be there by default anyway if it’s promoting IC products.

The CREAM listing team is a big deal for the protocol. Its the first major change to governance and it will vastly increase the time to market of new tokens which (hopefully) will help their platform a lot. How many of you actually care about the listing team, how it works, what affect it has on CREAM, etc.? How many of you would have taken the hours to move that proposal through if you have 14 other protocols to worry about? I have barely any CREAM tokens, i just do it because I know they can do better. Since they directly affect the price of DPI now, we all want to see them succeed. Who else is stepping up to do that?

[Kiba]

@cedrick

I think the gut reaction some people may have to the original structure you laid out is that they will have been forced to delegate some of their meta-gov power to one or two people and need to trust those individuals to carry that out responsibly

98.5% of INDEX holders don’t vote on metagov proposals. The people that would have an issue are a very minor portion of the DAO. I understand the sentiment but fundamentally that’s how all DAOs work anyway. We trust a couple people with the multisig to do literally everything for the DAO so not changing anything about how Index Coop operates, if they have an issue with no control we can have a 3,000 person multisig so we can all execute things together.

Also to add some data for context - I’m usually about >3% of INDEX that votes on proposals and I would really appreciate if someone took all these COMP and AAVE votes off my hands

@cedrick

the committee should probably just be the same people as the ambassadors

This makes more sense. I imagined specialist committees would be part of metagov working group to share info, coordinate across the industry, etc. so basically the same. I’ll DM u and Lavi on discord to get a proposal for. this started.

[ncitron]

I think Kiba is raising a really good point on the benefits of delegating meta governance to a committee. I think this itself could be fleshed out much more, and we could look towards Synthetix’s Spartan Council as inspiration. The Spartan Council has a lot of benefits, such as three-month terms, and the ability for the community to override votes and remove council members from their positions at any time.

One open question here though is whether we should have one committee per protocol or a single committee that does meta governance for all protocols? I think the former has the benefit of putting the most knowledgeable people in place for each protocol, while the ladder is much more scalable since it does require potentially dozens of committees.