1. Home
  2. Governance

Governance

Avalanche Pulls Down $230 Million Investment Led by Polychain and Three Arrows Capital

Avalanche Pulls Down 0 Million Investment Led by Polychain and Three Arrows CapitalAvalanche, a smart contract-enabled cryptocurrency, has received a $230 million investment from a group of VC companies. The funding round, which is being described as a private sale, was led by Polychain and Three Arrows Capital, with the participation of other companies. This investment will give these companies participation in on-chain Avalanche governance and exposure […]

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

Dydx Protocol Unlocks Airdrop Rewards; Users Get up to $50K

Dydx Protocol Unlocks Airdrop Rewards; Users Get up to KDydx, a decentralized exchange, finally unlocked its airdrop rewards for users. Its governance token, dydx, was locked due to airdrop restrictions since the protocol announced its distribution on August 3rd. Since its release the price has skyrocketed, giving some of the more active users on the platform more than $50K worth of dydx. However, some […]

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

Vitalik thinks token-based decentralized governance is holding DeFi back

Buterin asserts that things need to move beyond coin voting as it exists in its present form, suggesting “proof-of-humanity” or “proof-of-participation” alternatives.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has taken a deep dive into token-based decentralized governance, suggesting that existing voting mechanisms are flawed and may be holding the DeFi sector back from realizing its full potential.

In a lengthy blog post published Aug. 16, Buterin stated the crypto community needs to "move beyond coin voting as it exists in its present form.”

Currently, the majority of decentralized finance (DeFi) projects manage their protocol upgrades, reward issuance, and other facets of governance elections where votes are distributed among token holders according to the size of their holdings.

However, many projects have come under fire for allowing their voting process to be dominated by whales holding vast swathes of the governance tokens, allowing them to vote in support of their personal interests.

Buterin highlighted two issues relating to token-based governance, emphasizing the risk of incentives misaligning among community members, and its vulnerability to “vote-buying” and “outright attacks” influencing the outcome of governance votes. He added:

“The most important thing that can be done today is moving away from the idea that coin voting is the only legitimate form of governance decentralization.”

Buterin noted the prevalence of "unbundling," whereby “vote-buying” can be achieved and governance systems can be manipulated by borrowing on crypto collateral and using the tokenized assets to vote.

In the context of unbundling, “the borrower has governance power without economic interest, and the lender has economic interest without governance power,” he added.

Looking beyond token-based governance, Buterin advocated the exploration of “Proof-of-Humanity”-based governance systems where one vote is allocated per each of a protocol’s users.

Buterin also offered “Proof-of-Participation” as a possible solution, where voting is limited to the users of a protocol that have contributed work to the benefit of a project or its community, suggesting voting rights could be exclusively distributed to addresses that complete a specific task.

Ethereum’s co-founder also suggested quadratic voting — where the power of a single voter is proportional to the square root of the economic resources that they commit to a decision — could offer unique solutions to decentralized governance.

Related: Can DeFi and on-chain governance change human nature?

He also suggests a “skin in the game” approach that makes individual voters responsible for their decisions, stating:

“Coin voting fails because while voters are collectively accountable for their decisions (if everyone votes for a terrible decision, everyone's coins drop to zero), each voter is not individually accountable.”

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

Bitrue Aims to Democratize Token Listing Rights by Opening Voting Power to Users

Bitrue Aims to Democratize Token Listing Rights by Opening Voting Power to UsersDigital asset exchange Bitrue is seeking to engage its user community directly by distributing decision-making power for adding new token projects after the listing team thoroughly vets them. Platform Advancing Further Voting Powers in Future Updates Blockchain’s innate ability to decentralize products and services has long been among its key value propositions, especially when providing […]

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

MakerDAO to dissolve Foundation and become truly decentralized again

MakerDAO plans to complete its roadmap to decentralized governance with the dissolution of its foundation in the coming months.

Pioneering decentralized finance protocol, MakerDAO, has announced its foundation will formally dissolve in the coming months, marking one of the final milestones in the protocol’s roadmap to decentralized governance.

A July 20 blog post describes Maker’s decentralized autonomous organization, or DAO, as now being “fully self-sufficient” — with its globally distributed community “now responsible for every aspect of the Maker protocol.”

“Complete decentralization of Maker means that future development and operation of the Protocol and the DAO will be determined by thousands or perhaps millions of engaged, enthusiastic community members, all determined to extend the benefits of digital currency to people across the globe.”

The post’s author, Maker Foundation CEO, Rune Christensen recounts highlights from the project’s six-year journey, with Christensen having first revealed his plans in a Reddit post detailing his vision for an Ethereum-back stable token dubbed “eDollar” during March 2015.

The Maker Foundation was created as a non-profit tasked with overseeing the project's development and funding in September 2018, reportedly at the behest of its early investors. While Christensen created the Foundation with the intention of dissolving it within two to three years, the move catalyzed internal tensions between supporters of the Foundation and those who saw the legal entity as at odds with crypto’s fundamentally anarchic ethos.

He describes Maker as having “come a long way in a relatively short period,” transitioning from a pioneering fledgling DAO, into a Foundation, and back to a DAO again.

“While the Foundation played a specific and important role in the further development of the Maker Protocol and the growth of a global team, it was designed to exist only temporarily,” emphasized Christensen.

In May 2017, more than two years after Christensen revealed Maker on Reddit, the protocol conducted a limited release of ProtoSai — the precursor to Maker’s first stablecoin, SAI, or Single-Collateral Dai.

SAI would enjoy a wholesale release in December of 2017 and circulate for nearly two years, with Maker introducing Multi-Collateral Dai (DAI) during November of 2019 — allowing DAI to be minted against a variety of digital assets approved by Maker governance.

Related: Australian digital finance industry wants to legally recognize DAOs

While Maker would emerge as a pioneering DeFi protocol perched at the top of the sector’s rankings by total value locked, 2020 was not all smooth sailing for Maker, with users launching a class-action lawsuit against the foundation in the aftermath of “Black Thursday” in March. The incident saw Maker lose roughly $6.64 million DAI to cascading liquidations after the price of Ether crashed 50% over roughly 24 hours.

March 2020 would also see the Maker Foundation transfer the MKR token contract to community governance, marking the beginnings of the project’s journey to reinstating decentralizing governance — with Christensen characterizing the foundation as “completely pointless.”

The protocol would also add support for Circle’s centralized stablecoin USDC that month, inflaming controversy regarding Maker’s support for centralized crypto assets as collateral for its purported decentralized stable token.

In March of this year, “Core Units” were established to coordinate management across the protocol’s various teams and activities. The foundation would also return development funds of 84,000 MKR to the Maker DAO in May, worth nearly $500 million at the time.

According to DeFi Llama, MakerDAO is currently the sixth-ranked decentralized finance protocol with a total value locked of $5.62 billion.

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

Concern as Uniswap-backed ‘DeFi Education Fund’ dumps $10M worth of UNI

The recently formed DeFi Education Fund has come under fire for abruptly announcing it had liquidated half of the 1 million UNI tokens donated to it through UNI governance.

The controversial Uniswap-funded DeFi Education Fund has liquidated half of its donated funding into stablecoins, attracting condemnation from many in the crypto community.

On June 12, the fund tweeted that it was selling 500,000 UNI to Genesis Trading for 10.2 million USDC in an over-the-counter (OTC) trade, despite the Uniswap proposal for the fund indicating it would liquidate the 1 million UNI over four to five years.

In May, the student organization, Harvard Law Blockchain and Fintech Initiative, launched a governance proposal advocating for the creation of the fund and allocation of 1 million UNI (worth roughly $18 million at current prices) to the entity to support educational initiatives and policy lobbying for the decentralized finance sector.

At the start of this month, the proposal was passed and the UNI tokens were transferred to the fund.

The incident has reignited concerns regarding the centralization of Uniswap’s governance process, and called into question the transparency and motives of the fund.

Blockchain sleuths were able to identify that Larry Sukernik, one of the multi signers behind the education fund, had sold 2,612 UNI just a few hours prior to the OTC deal. On Twitter, Sukernik defended the trade, stating the UNI he sold was from a grant he'd only received a few weeks earlier.

Related: Cointelegraph Consulting: The race between Uniswap DEXs

Speaking to Cointelegraph, DeFi Watch founder, Chris Blec, emphasized that Harvard Law had made it clear “the intent was to to gradually sell the 1m UNI over a 4-5 year period, and not dump large amounts at once.”

“The Fund then just sold 50% of the 1m UNI for USDC without explanation. They still haven't explained why, despite hundreds of people asking them today,” he added.

On July 13, Blec posted a governance thread demanding transparency regarding the fund, expressing concerns regarding the voting process surrounding the proposal, the creation of the fund, and the possible role of Uniswap investor, Andresson Horowitz (a16z), in influencing the events.

“The DeFi Education Fund committee members, the Uniswap core team and its investors (including a16z) have refused to answer any specific questions posed to them about the fund’s origins, who came up with the idea, how future policy will be derived, and more,” Blec wrote, noting that a letter he sent to Andressen Horowitz had been “willfully ignored.”

“After the vote finished and the Fund was created, I sent a new set of questions on June 29 to a16z, as it appeared that the vote only won due to governance delegates using voting power given to them by a16z. These questions were also willfully ignored.”

Blec also called for Sukernik to stand down from the fund’s committee, telling Cointelegraph: “Even if it was unintentional, the appearance of a member of this committee selling UNI tokens from his own account just hours before triggering a massive 500K UNI sale is exactly the type of behavior that would trigger a regulator.” 

“It would send the right message if Sukernik resigned from the committee and allowed someone else to take his place.”

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

Blockchain Groups From Major Universities Are Powerful Voters in Defi Governance Protocols

Blockchain Groups From Major Universities Are Powerful Voters in Defi Governance ProtocolsData shows a number of groups from major universities are participating in decentralized finance (defi) governance. For instance, out of 15 of the largest voters in Uniswap’s last governance proposal, six of the major voters were tied to universities like Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Penn, Michigan, MIT, and Columbia University. Blockchain University Groups Identified as Major […]

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

Finance Redefined: Alchemix rugpull remuneration, and Aave v. 2.5! June 16-23

The first-ever “reverse rug” has a surprising compensation plan, and the largest protocol in DeFi ponders growth.

After close to a month of consulting with industry experts and journalists within Cointelegraph and without, we’re proud to unveil a new segment for Finance Redefined, a.k.a. the premier DeFi industry newsletter: on-chain analysis. 

Reporters will often look to public records to bolster stories, and the blockchain is no different. Everything from analyzing the wallet of the fake Banksy NFT artist to following-up with exploiter wallets in the wake of hacks, the data is often used but arguably not to the extent that it could be.

For instance, there is a wallet widely-known to be that of Mark Cuban, serial entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He’s doxxed himself indirectly and directly many times — the address is the owner of markcuban.eth, for christsakes. And yet, when he announces that he’s invested in Polygon (or an algo stable shitcoin, RIP Titan) it’s news, but when he makes the moves on the wallet in real time…. the crypto-news industry ignores it?

Reporting on wallet transactions is fraught with complications, however. As Sam Trabucco of Alameda Research told me in Miami, “doxxed” Alameda wallets know that they’re doxxed (“contaminated” is the term they use internally), and trying to interpret a buy from one ‘known’ wallet may only be glimpsing a small part of a much larger picture — Alameda may be hedging with another acct, and as such public buys/sells are ultimately not indications of a wider opinion on an asset.

Check out this thread on folks trying to uncover what Alameda is doing with CRV as an example — the tail-chasing and narrative flip-flopping is extreme:

Additionally, despite ample evidence, if Mark Cuban ever came out and said that a wallet is not his — doesn’t matter if he has the ENS, doesn’t matter if he’s even claimed it as his in the past — we, as an outlet, have no way to definitively prove to the contrary, and as such explicitly linking an individual or institution to a wallet is unacceptable regardless of any amount of circumstantial evidence. 

So, we’ve tiptoed and wondered and thought and thought about it some more. On-chain data is both public and wildly underused by news outlets, but it’s a new source type from a journalism perspective and really uncharted ethical ground.

Some of the language decisions we’ve made might seem a little obtuse, but they’re measured and we think appropriate. Let us know what you think.

We hope you like our first installment, courtesy of Bill Zerox aka @0xbilll:

Alchemix rugpull remuneration analysis 

After a rug pull, desperate community members typically beg developers to return the stolen funds and social media channels become chaotic — filled with stories of tragic loss and impoverished nurses. It only makes sense then that in the first "reverse rug" in DeFi history, it’s the developers begging the community to return the funds. The big difference is that instead of ignoring requests, as exploiters often do, the community has seemingly responded.

Last week, Alchemix suffered a bug that saw users walk away with 2262 ETH (almost $4.5 million USD, even with the recent price decline) in what is being called the first-ever “reverse rug”. Instead of using treasury funds or minting a new token, steps that other protocols have taken to recoup a loss after a bug or hack, the Alchemix team is asking users who benefited to return the ETH.

In exchange, Alchemix is promising users 1 ALCX per 1 ETH returned. If users who benefited from the bug return the full amount of ETH that they were able to withdraw, the team says the generous exploiters will also receive a “special” NFT that includes "yet-to-be-determined functionality in the Alchemix DAO.”

Although unconventional — as the best things in DeFi are — on the surface their ask to the community has been a success. Taking a look under the hood, however, reveals that the majority of funds were donated from one altruistic Alchemist developer while the accounts that walked away with the most ETH show no signs that they will return the funds.

On-chain data shows that the majority of ‘returned’ funds have come in the form of community members donating ETH, as opposed to users returning the ETH that the bug allowed them to claim.

1129.85 ETH has been returned as of this afternoon. Breaking it down, 358.21 ETH (~32%) is from users who benefited from the bug, while 771.64 ETH (~68%) has been donated by community members.

Data taken from Dune Dashboad thanks to 0xGranger at ~2:45 EST June 23rd; https://duneanalytics.com/queries/66340/132563

The largest donation so far is a staggering 730 ETH from an apparent Alchemist developer with the ENS handle n4n0.eth. They did not receive ETH from the exploit, so they are presumably reaching into their own pockets — a testament to their belief in Alchemix and their desire to make the protocol whole.

When called out in the Alchemix discord, n4n0 simply said, “I’m in it for the tech.”

Screenshot taken from official Alchemix Discord channel

A Twitter profile with the same name lists their role as “codemonkey @ http://alchemix.fi."

Outside of n4n0.eth’s 730 ETH donation, 196 other addresses have donated a total of 41.64 ETH. While some of the addresses may be speculating that those who donate will be eligible for future airdrops, the response also shows that the community wants Alchemix to succeed.

Looking at addresses who received excess ETH from the exploit, the top 20 addresses walked away with almost 1800 ETH, ranging from 25 to 500 ETH. Of those, so far only four addresses have returned the full amount they got off with for a total of 174 ETH.

One of these addresses, themockingjay.eth, returned the 40 ETH that they were able to withdraw because of the bug. Their address shows that they are active DeFi users and early Alchemist supporters, as demonstrated by them apeing into pool 2 a couple days after the protocol launched.

Zerion currently shows themockingjay.eth’s net worth at over $2 million, demonstrating that they are characteristic of DeFi users who are in a position to support a protocol, as opposed to carry off with the funds.

With the promise of an NFT and the chance to live in Alchemix/DeFi/Crypto history forever, perhaps the response here should not come as a surprise.

Sign up for weekly DeFi news before it hits the main site!

Aave 2.5, and airdrops to come

Like many DeFi protocols, Aave isn’t having ‘growing pains’ so much as the project is sprouting wings. 

A former perennial top-10 on rankings websites, they’re now the definitive #1 in DeFi with nearly $17 billion in TVL on the back of a highly successful liquidity mining program. However, in an interview with Cointelegraph Aave co-founder Stani Kulechov weighed in on the same problem dozens of protocols now face: how to continue the explosive growth in an increasingly complicated system?

“Now the question is, how do we keep growing at the same pace, and also expand the growth as new projects are coming in, as new ideas and innovation comes into the whole ecosystem?” He asked.

The first step for Aave is applying what works to new environments. The team is working on a governance bridge that can let users vote on layer-1 for decisions that will apply to the various layer-2 implementations of the market, allowing for “cross-chain decentralized decision making,” says Kulechov. This new feature will be available in a matter of weeks.

However, larger changes are coming as well:

“We believe the future is multi-asset and multi-governance. [...] This means we’ll have more inclusive decision making in the community.”

Multi-asset governance —- say, AAVE and BAL holders voting on a AAVE-specific proposal — will of course be an entirely new experiment, and comes with specific considerations for the community. 

In Stani’s view, which assets other than AAVE should determine Aave’s fate largely depend on the synergy. Ultimately it will be up to AAVE holders to vote on who gets in, but Stani pointed towards protocols like Balancer — who have a forthcoming deep integration with Aave to deposit unused AMM liquidity into lending pools — as a prime option in a multi-asset governance framework. Likewise, MakerDAO is building a system where the protocol deposits DAI into Aave, and then uses aDAI as collateral in special vaults to assist with liquidity crunches — another deep integration that would possibly warrant inclusion for MKR in multi-asset governance.

This is part of a broader framework for the Aave core team stepping away from the project after the eventual Aave v3 launch. At that point, major users of the Aave protocol (including other protocols that may be using Aave), should be the ones to decide its parameters.

As a result, the day may come when the most significant votes on Aave governance come from addresses controlled by other governance communities.

But what will the core development team do after the launch of Aave v3? Social media protocols? High fashion on the blockchain? And will it involve potentially lucrative airdrops to current AAVE holders? Kulechov was scant with details (despite his odd Tweets on the topic here and there), but did wax philosophical when it comes to possible airdrops:

“The two key principles are distribution — how do you empower the Aave community when you distribute new assets — and secondly how you can use tokeneconomics to empower your product and your community.”

As an example of empowering a community, Stani pointed to staked Aave, stAAVE, which is used to backstop the protocol as an insurance fund in the case of a shortfall event. Depositing into this fund rewards users with more AAVE and therefore more governance power — ultimately using the token to reward deeper engagement. 

The development of the backstop model — also known as Aavenomics, a whitepaper that laid out how the protocol would attract liquidity, and the security to back that liquidity — took six months. Stani said the team settled on a model where “the AAVE token becomes a way to transfer risk to community members, as they’re the ones making risk-based decisions.” This forces the community to be more involved, as they bear risk, but proportionally rewards them.

Kulechov expressed skepticism that new tokens would be needed for new projects from the core team because “you can build value with new protocols directly in the ecosystem you have, and reinforce the current value there.” He also noted that the Synthetix model, which will lead to four new tokens in the coming months, may have downsides: “The risk is that if you come to market with five new tokens, you kind of might dilute the main asset and the community there, and split your community.”

Potential fat airdrops aside, for now the focus is on the forthcoming “Aave v. 2.5,” the penultimate upgrade before v3.

Aave 2.5 comes with a focus on risk mitigation. The update will include supply and borrow caps on certain assets, and improved liquidation mechanisms — what Stani calls “the final version before the ultimate protocol we wanted to build (v3),” and afterwards the community will take over the protocol and its development entirely. The team at Parafi Capital, who co-authored a liquidity mining proposal for Aave, are some of the chief architects of the overhaul. 

Ultimately, while the Aave team continues to iterate and learn from fellow protocols, Stani says the kind of bold experimentation Aave has made (and continues to make) is the best path forward for the space:

“The best way to do things is being experimental. You actually need to fail with tokeneconomics before you can find something that actually works.” 

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes

ConsenSys throws its weight behind Uniswap DeFi lobbying proposal

The controversial proposal is gaining the support of the big players.

Ethereum solutions provider ConsenSys has pledged support for a Uniswap governance proposal to set aside tokens for a new decentralized finance (DeFi) fund for political lobbying.

The proposal was made on May 27 by the Harvard Law School Blockchain and FinTech Initiative for the creation of a fund that would finance existing and new political groups engaged in crypto policy-making and lobbying to defend DeFi against regulation.

The Harvard Law BFI proposal cited concerns that governments around the world may try to regulate DeFi without proper education and suggested a fund of 1-1.5 million UNI. It ledged more than 10 million tokens in support of the idea. The proposal is headed towards a full vote.

General legal counsel at ConsenSys, Matt Corva, stated that educating lawmakers is of critical importance at this juncture, “particularly as we creep towards true aspirational 'main street' use of our technologies”:

“In sum, this is a terrific effort and Uniswap taking the first step could break the floodgates of other large treasuries supporting this (or similar) initiatives.”

Calling it “one of the best initiatives to date”, Corva stated that the firm had been engaged in some form of policy and advocacy, either directly or indirectly, since early 2016. He added that the two best uses for community funds in his view were things that drive real-life use of the technology, and simultaneous advocacy.

“Therefore, we will be supporting this and have already communicated to our portfolio companies our wish that they consider doing the same.”

According to the firm's investment arm Mesh, portfolio companies include crypto lending platform BlockFi, security firm Quantstamp, scaling solutions provider Starkware, and DeFi protocol Compound Finance, which may be able to tip the voting balance.

The DeFi political defense fund will target the Biden administration’s 2020 budget proposal, which includes a potential expansion of crypto asset reporting requirements, among others.

The Uniswap governance proposal has been controversial since many disagree that a single organization and a handful of lawyers should decide how to deploy lobbying funds for the rest of the community.

Pseudonymous crypto-influencer DCinvestor remained skeptical, stating that the amount requested was “simply too great”, and it is not consistent with responsible treasury management.

Uniswap governance process involves three stages: a “temperature check” vote requiring 25,000 UNI to pass, a “consensus check” vote needing 50,000 to pass, and the final vote needing a quorum of 40 million UNI to pass.

The snapshot reported that there were 34 million votes for and 17.8 million against in the “consensus check” stage meaning that it will now move to a full vote.

According to Etherscan, there are a number of UNI whale addresses holding more than 10 million tokens and ConsenSys could well be one of them. Its support of the proposal will no doubt be influential on the outcome.

Japan Is on a Web 3.0 Hot Streak, and the World Should Take Notes