# Improving the Working Group structure

**URL:** <https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/improving-the-working-group-structure/1655>\
**Category:** Governance\
**Created:** [8 June 2021 15:41 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/improving-the-working-group-structure/1655 "2021-06-08T15:41:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mrvls\_brkfst](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/gov.indexcoop.com/mrvls_brkfst/32/401_2.png) [@mrvls\_brkfst](https://gov.indexcoop.com/u/mrvls_brkfst)\
**Post date:** [13 June 2021 08:55 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/improving-the-working-group-structure/1655/7 "2021-06-13T08:55:16Z")

</div>

> [@anon10525910](#):
>
> On multi-sigs for WG leads – i’m curious, what is inspiring this question? Security concerns, trust concerns, something else

Hi Greg! Yes, I think multi-sig should only apply for really big allocations to an address. In my mind it seems reasonable for security, peace-of-mind for the holder, and diligent from the point of view of INDEX investors - so less about my personal trust of the person holding the funds and more about belts, braces, and reputation.

As for the threshold for requiring it? I don’t know. A portion of INDEX deemed significant enough to risk swinging votes, impacting price dramatically, damaging ongoing Coop operations from a budgetary standpoint - at that kind of level. Maybe there is no danger of that.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/improving-the-working-group-structure/1655)._