Tuesday Update: New Bridging and Multi-Sig Validity Requirements

Hi everyone. Thanks for your continued thoughtful participation in this experiment. The proposal list is steadily expanding, and @octo44’s iterative approach is in its second substage, for anyone who wants to check that out.

Sorry for the delay in assessing some of the incomplete proposals. We’ve been looking into the chains and exchanges you’ve been suggesting, and as always in crypto nothing is simple!

We’re still trying to assess the viability of moving liquidity to Solana and Avalanche. There are generally two issues (which apply to all non-ETH chains, but these less-established ones seem to be harder):

  • Can we bridge HOPR to the chain safely and securely
  • Can the DAO retain control of the liquidity there safely and securely.

The second point requires a little more explanation of how the DAO operates. Funds are moved by the DAO using a 3-of-5 multisig. This is common practice to ensure the safety of DAO funds, but it’s not always easy to set these up.

To be completely honest, we overlooked the importance of this requirement when we set the validity rules. So we need to add the following:

  • “All chains in a proposal need to support proper management of the liquidity on the chosen DEXs (i.e., adding, removing and whatever other interactions are required for LPs) through a 3-of-5 multisig”

We’re looking into bridging and multisigs on Solana and Avalanche as quickly as possible. Initial research suggests it should be possible (if awkward) on Avalanche, but Solana is less clear.

If anyone here has any insights into this, it would be great to hear from you.


I like this idea