YIP-202: YAM Governance Attacks - Guardian Multisig Update Proposal

YIP-202: YAM Governance Attacks - Guardian Multisig Update Proposal

Yam is under going a governance attack by people have tried twice to donate other people’s funds and be able to redeem their own.

It is theft to donate other people’s funds but not your own.

This has been discussed at nauseam on discord and the forums, but the individuals who have been caught trying to pay for votes to steal other people’s funds have created a snapshot twice. Both snapshots have failed but it is likely that they will try again.

Evidence of impropriety:


2 Snapshots that have failed:
https://snapshot.org/#/yam.eth/proposal/0xe2b29b6ed210b7737c1e397b9a9449035f265475c152986182d29588f1571232
https://snapshot.org/#/yam.eth/proposal/0x3db446c52f54bba28b95551dfa8f55ca0a9fda868dbec04d37a46467eb3fc1bf

Solution -

  1. Ban / ignore all further discussion and votes that would send un-redeemed funds without approval from the holders of un-redeemed YAM.
  2. Update the Guardian Multisig - We need to update the guardian multisig to include people who will stop bad actors who want to spend other YAM holder’s part of the treasury but not their own.

Who should be on the Guardian Multisig

This proposal will be removing anyone who is currently on the guardian multisig that:

  1. Would no longer like to be a guardian
  2. Would not vote to cancel an on-chain transaction that would allow donation of other people’s funds but not their own.
  3. Does not respond within 48 hours.

This proposal will add anyone that would like to apply.
Anyone is qualified if they meet either one of these criteria:

  1. Anyone who has publically spoken out agianst the theft of un-redeemed funds before the time stamp of this posting.
  2. Anyone who has voted on the past 10 snapshot proposals with these requirements:
    a. With above 3k BOU YAM. There are many bots that auto vote every snapshot with minimal number of YAM.
    b. Did not vote to donate un-redeemed funds to charity on either of the snapshots.
    c. A member of the community before Oct 9th.

Additional Info

The two wallets that are primarily trying to redeem and donate the un-redeemed treasury have bought all their YAM at a significant discount to treasury value. By going thru with the redeem, they stand to profit immediately but they want to also steal the treasury from the people who are unaware or don’t keep track.

Yes it is a governance attack since it already has been denied once. As per that snapshot, “pro-rata” was specifically declined.
There are proper ways to do a donation. This isn’t it, you can’t decide for the people that did not redeem their tokens.
Here’s an option that does not involve theft that’s proper:
Redeem the entire treasury for all token holders, people can “opt out” of the redeem and donate their funds to a charity of their choice.

Your solution is to ban and censor token holders who have ideas that you disagree with and then change the guardian to only have signers that agree with you?

:thinking:

2 Likes

Again, it was already snapshotted once and failed. The established process is not to override the result and do another snapshot because you didn’t like the results of the first.

Multiple long established community members are voicing the fact that they think this is improper. This isn’t just my agenda. Actually it was @mona that brought it up first not me.

Again, Here’s an option that does not involve theft that’s proper:
Redeem the entire treasury for all token holders, people can “opt out” of the redeem and donate their funds to a charity of their choice.

Additional responses from discord to a select few pro “donate yours but not mine”:

First donation snapshot was clear, multiple questions were brought up during the first snapshot that was answered by the proposer. At no point did the proposer suggest that the proposal needed to be re-done until after they lost.

Second donation snapshot the majority vote is “no redemption”, no where in the snapshot did it state that voting for either charity was in aggregate vs the third option.

In addition, the second donation snapshot was created AFTER the YIP-201 snapshot to redeem without any donation. Look at the start dates.
YIP-201 started on Oct 11 and second donation snapshot started on Oct 13, 2 days later.

The second donation has multiple issues:

  1. Pro rata distribution was already denied during the first donation snapshot
  2. YIP-201 snapshot was posted earlier and is directly in conflict with second donation snapshot
  3. No notation that 2 of the 3 choices were in aggregate against the 3rd choice.
  4. It has been said multiple times by multiple community members other than me that donation of funds other people’s funds but not yours is improper and possibly theft.

So again if you want to make a proposal that would be proper and not involve giving away funds of other people’s but not your own, let’s start a discussion.

1 Like

Now the market value of YAM is less than the value of the treasury, allowing the redemption of treasury shares, which is very unfair to those who bought YAM at a high price before.
Having said that, as the community is very divided on the direction of YAM development, redemption of the treasury is also a way to solve the problem.
But the remaining shares that have not been redeemed should stay where they are and wait for those who remain to make their own decisions.
Such endless entanglement, want to take other people’s money, very absurd. This is no longer a normal community governance vote, but a governance attack. YAM Guardian Multisig has the responsibility to protect the treasury so that YAM can continue.

2 Likes

I keep forgetting there’s also a forum discussion in addition to the Discord discussion. For the record, I want to summarize my position to be as follow:

  1. The treasury belongs to the DAO and not token holders. Token holders do not have an entitlement to the treasury as of right.

  2. As a result, it is incorrect to characterize donating the residual treasury funds to charity after a 12 month redemption window as stealing. It is simply a decision of token holders exercising their rights to manage the affairs of the DAO. The ‘redemption’ proposals allow token holders to exit their holdings in that 12 month window by redeeming, given the significant change in direction of the DAO.

  3. There are currently two competing proposals. Namely, YIP201 and 1tx’s second redemption proposal. Both are valid proposals but 1tx’s second redemption proposal has significantly more voter turnout, including the major voters of YIP201 (i.e. Feddas and jpg). Clearly, 1tx’s second proposal is more indicative of the views of token holders as a whole - 60% of token holders that voted, voted to donate the residual treasury to a charity.

  4. As a result, it is incorrect to say in YIP202 that: (i) 1tx’s second proposal failed; and (ii) the proposal constitutes a governance attack.

  5. YIP202 is concerning - it seeks to remove representation of 60% of the voting token holders and is contrary to the very nature of DeFi by attempting to form a multi-sig of only those who agree with the minority view. If anything, this is a governance attack.

2 Likes

The community and super majority token holders have voted to redeem the treasury and distribute the leftover funds to charity. I will not vote on Feddas (Steven)'s snapshot proposals because they have very little voter support(>95% only him and jpegs) in comparison to the passed vote to redeem the treasury and donate the remaining funds: Snapshot

If a Feddas snapshot or any vote can get more than the 1,900,000 voting power which the above redemption vote closed with then I will recognize it as overturned. Until then I do not consider these votes valid and they will not succeed on chain because the actual voting power does not agree with them.

Sorry gents, your proposals are malicious attacks no matter how many votes are voted or not voted on them. Redemption will be allowed for you to exit but not donate other people’s money. Since you talk about votes, your proposal has less than 33% of all yam tokens voting. Your using a minority vote to try and steal other people’s money.

You cannot redeem your own shares and donate other peoples money no matter how you try to play with the wording or the governance.

1 Like

The previous 2 donation proposals to force the issue in addition to bribery is not attempting to answer the question but attempting covertly steal funds from unsuspecting yam holders. This is absolutely not acceptable. In addition, the 2nd proposal after the first one that failed trying to circumvent the proposal just to redeem is an attack on governance.

Putting together these facts:

  1. No real discussion in good faith similar to the question you pose
  2. Bribery of jpgs by @1tx.capital
  3. Subversion of standard governance procedures
    Me and others believe this to be an attack on Yam and its governance process and have proposed to end this. Maybe this isn’t the proper way to go about this and I am open to ideas on how to deal with this specific situation.
    YIP-202: YAM Governance Attacks - Guardian Multisig Update Proposal

Copy and paste from discord:

Ross :minidisc: Today at 4:07 PM

Ok, one last time and then I’m done. Please read and think hard about this. It is how molochDAOs and other organizations work and is considered fair:

The DAO decides what to do with the treasury that it controls communally. It votes on it legitimately and fairly. This is not determined by you or me, but as a legitimate vote by token holders. Whether someone has stated an interest in redeeming is unimportant since whether they will redeem or not cannot be determined. After the vote, a redemption is started where people who disagree with the outcome can exit for a certain period of time. Anyone who does not redeem agrees to abide by the vote. If you do not participate then you agree to the decision of the rest of the DAO.

Process: Collect the different options for what can be done with the treasury. Vet them for their ability to be carried out and make sure that no one is trying to personally benefit themselves by directly taking funds in a way that benefits them materially over others. This will require work and negotiation. Then vote on that. Make sure everyone has a chance to weight in and propose options. It does not have to be winner takes all. After the vote, allow redemptions for dissenters. Once redemptions close, the actions voted upon occur.

Feddas Today at 4:15 PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Unfortunately this isn’t what has happened

“make sure that no one is trying to personally benefit themselves by directly taking funds in a way that benefits them materially over others.”
Watoto donation it cannot be determined they are not materially benefiting the proposer, due to these facts:

  1. @1tx.capital (proposer) is willing to bribe people to vote to donate to Watoto
  2. There has been no verifiable information that @1tx.capital does not benefit from the donation.

In order to even consider Watoto as a possible donation @1tx.capital needs to show verifiable information that they would not benefit. Normally this would not be the standard but given the fact you tried to bribe others to get your way this will be required to negotiate in good faith. In addition, since they do not accept crypto natively, you would need to provide a plan that would be able to verify the donation went to the charity.

1 Like

That itself is governance attack @feddas, when youre filtering individuals to sign only what you want.

And the screenshot you included is showing a token holder trying to push forward his proposal wanting more support, regardless trying to pay people to support him. Are you now also parenting token holders? One would either agree with them when they came up with the offer either not.

The wallets included buying yam at low price, means anything? many people are buying yam at low prices because they support the project and its contributors, want to push forward what they want, or want to make profits from yam, nothing of difference its all the same, or should we start banning/ignoring people that buy Yam tokens?

Then about @mona bringing something up, if they brought something up doesnt mean its accurate or should be the case nor means you should blame @mona because you chose to push this thought forward, the money isnt for anyone other than yam treasury thats controlled by token holders, it can be toward anything redemption donation etc., and as it shows, this proposal copy is missing many things, no collaboration, attacking people, want to filter peoples ideas to your liking, yet you initially supported donation and supported redemption and still supporting redemption, (and even while im fully against redemption or donation, cooperating with token holders and how governance should work is a must, respecting their ideas, not blocking and obstructing them to push forward your idea).

1 Like
  1. Are their proposals clear / complete / comprehendible? Read them. Does any information conflict?
  2. Have they tried to create proposals that are clear / complete / comprehendible?
  3. Have they taken into consideration the communities concerns?
  4. Have they clearly gone thru the governance process?

If the answer to all these questions is NO, then it’s a governance attack and will be treated as such.

TLDR: By 1tx’s own admission, his snapshot is not valid because he did not achieve 2.1 million votes.

mona Today at 12:05 AM

The proposal is confusing. If I remember correctly, the community passed a Treasury redemption proposal with no donation.

1tx.capital Today at 5:43 AM

You can review the vote count. A super majority voted for the charity option and none of Feddas other proposals came close to the same voter support or turnout. Also his proposals are 99% his and jpegs’ votes only. If anyone including Feddas can gain more voter support than the proposal this forum post is addressing then that will be more valid. The on-chain vote will decide exactly this.

There has been weeks for you to ask clarificatory questions about what you call “confusing” but haven’t actually said what part is confusing. Please feel free to still ask

Feddas Today at 8:23 AM

Many things are confusing, about your snapshots but you refuse to address any of them: 1st Snapshot: There was a “pro-rata option” which did not win. If successful it should have lead to a 2nd snapshot with different charities for a pro-rata donation but it was not successful therefor should not lead to the 2nd snapshot. 2nd Snapshot: First, it shouldn’t have happened because of the above reason. Second, Title clearly says “charity signaling only”, Body says Redeem + Charity, which is a significant discrepancy and clearly MORE confusing than the 1st. Third, 1tx capital expressly agreed to a snapshot for charity only:

1tx.capital

You can review the vote count. A super majority voted for the charity option and none of Feddas other proposals came close to the same voter support or turnout. Also his proposals are 99% his and jpegs’ votes only. If anyone including Feddas can gain more voter support than the proposal this forum post is addressing then that will be more valid. The on-chain vote will decide exactly this.

Feddas Today at 8:31 AM

“If anyone including Feddas can gain more voter support than the proposal this forum post is addressing then that will be more valid.” By your definition, this snapshot has 2.1 million votes with super majority and more discourse and more unique voter turn out and related to your snapshot, so this will stand above your snapshot: Snapshot Thank you for clarifying @1tx.capital Now stand by your words.