Proposal #7: Tornado Cash Community Fund

Thanks. Very excited the community now has an incentivized means to grow and develop further

You are correct. To make any changes to the ceiling there would need to be an additional proposal by governance (examples: to increase ceiling, decrease ceiling, or cancel the sablier stream altogether)

1 Like

I think from now on we can’t rely on forum polls for voting. They are too easily gameable (Seen it in the past on the first multisig application thread) they are still fine for informal polls or getting a felling of the opinion of the community.

For the new members of the multisig, I would directly do vote on Snapshot to elect 2 members to increase to multisig from 2-of-3 to 4-of-5. I am aware of the interest of @optionsmate, @xgozzy and @bt11ba and some other on Discord not on the forum. If I forgot someone, please signal your interest :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Would be honored to take the role, I do still think I need to prove myself. Which I am currently attempting to do through finalizing a design for an auction contract to recompensate individuals in TORN for updating the merkle trees.

I’ve done my homework on the TornadoTrees and TornadoProxy contracts and abstracted how the root updater works. Just trying to derive logic around issuing a proportion of the available rewards based on how many roots are updated out of the pending registered roots (nearly there on this). This contract would need the ability to adjust the rate at which TORN is available for redemption so that governance can modify to suit compensatory requirements with the ever-changing market for TORN.

I will post a rough mock contract and some alternative design suggestions this week that I’ve been in talks with @ethdev about, such as forking Sablier.

4 Likes

Thank you and once again I renew my committment to returning to ongoing cadence of participation moving on.
Opened a dedicated thread herein Multisig Amendment Proposal: <Add @OptionsMate> <Change to 3-of-4 Signatures>
@ethdev @rezan My understanding is that the community has already expressed soft consensus on the matter (twice) thus the multisig will execute their will, but from now on further nomination could require a bit of a harder consensus in the form of a snapshot voting; would this require also a form of quorum?

1 Like

Agreed, but we do need to create some kind of formal process now for each amendment. That thread you started will act as the documented record of your multisig candidacy

One other thing. No need to include the < > characters in your post thread. That’s mostly to just illustrate <many different types of subjects can be inputted here>. You can edit your thread and remove them if you’d like

Updates to the Community

  1. 100 TORN/month streams for each of the three current multisig signers have just been deployed for the next 1 year using Sablier: Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan

  2. TORN has now been added to the official Sablier UI thanks to a $250 payment made by @Justin_Bram to the Sablier team

cc: @WUTornado for the next article

4 Likes

Hi @Rezan, I have been following this vote closely without registering on the forum. However, it is quite strange to see that a few minutes before Optionsmate closes this vote concerning his election, there was a massive influx of votes in his favour. The problem with these kinds of votes is that they are easily rigged. I don’t think it’s a good idea to elect by this means now. Thank you for your proposal concerning Snapshot.
I thought it was really weird that Optionsmate had so many votes at once just before closing, when no one commented. @Rezan, if you have access to the voting data, I’d be curious to see the creation date of the accounts that voted on the poll posted by Optionsmate.

It seems even more odd to me that he repeatedly presses the fact that he was elected twice, to avoid a snapshot

I don’t have any hatred towards anyone, the only thing I know is that the multisig is important and that it is out of the question to have a dishonest person elected. I hold enough TORN to want to avoid that.
I apologise for my directness.

2 Likes

I definitely agree with you. The polls on this forum are and were always only informal since the beginning. The formal voting was always on-chain with TORN. Since we now have to vote off-chain, using something like snapshot is unavoidable.

Nothing against @optionsmate, but his election will have to go through snapshot. I would personally not vet his election as of now. We can’t trust forum polls for anything beyond community temperature checks.

3 Likes

Thanks for raising your concerns on @optionsmate’s candidacy @naru and @Rezan. For the sake of maintaining good records, I would ask/suggest that comments be added to his dedicated candidacy thread. This will help provide more visibility to your concerns where further constructive dialogue can be had

I am supportive of snapshot voting for multisig amendments that are dependent on soft consensus only and not hard code

1 Like

done

1 Like

**Tl;dr: **
- votes “for” were consistent with my overall community participation since beginning of the year, this not in one but in two different polls (thus unlikely artificially inflated)
- votes “against” were only two (impossible to be artificially deflated)
- clicking “users” on top right menu and “all time”; I am 4th right after poma, rezan and ethdev when it comes to likes received and posts; this is consistent with community support for my inclusion in both threads


Welcome to raise your concern @naru.

Please consider the following:

  1. I have been one of the most active members of this community; if you click on “users”, sort by “all time”, you will see I am one of the 4 highest when it comes to likes received, posts created, and overall participation. This is consistent with the number of votes FOR I have received on both my nominations.
  2. Votes “against” cannot be manipulated lower in any way, and there were only 2 of these. The votes “for” were pretty much the same which were received in my initial nomination thread, only 2 more (9 instead of 7).
  3. I have been the one to get the ball rolling with the multisig; this might have added further visiblity.

As a result of the aforementioned, I find these allegations preposterous, but no issue with you @naru as you raised them with the benefit of the doubt and this is how things should be in a transparent community. Do disagree however in what you say on “suspicious inflow in the last minutes before it was closed”, haven’t seen that but my word against yours there.

What, however, comes to me as a big kick in the teeth, is hearing @rezan saying he won’t vet for me after all these months I have been active in the forum.
Not only @rezan entirely dismisses the point that him, as a multisig holder, shall not withold any power other than signing for the community will, but he suggests that even though I have been quite active here, both my polls could have been manipulated to my advantage (even though their results are consistent with my forum participation).
Furthermore, @rezan is now a multisig holder as a result of soft-consensus expression of the community in which the community has agreed on my inclusion as much as they have agreed on his. Of course as a dev close to poma he was the most highly voted, whereas I am just an independent community member with a passion for privacy - but my point is why do I need a snapshot vote, when the polls simply reflected my overall involvement with the community?

Put yourself in my shoes guys.
I have participated in the TC community for months, started a thread to create the multisig even uploading some code, then (my fault here) had 4 weeks of unexpected personal life issues to sort out and on my return what I find?
Rezan, ethdev and Justin (whom I highly respect but whom never was involved with TC before) as the members of that multisig, with my request to join being denied.
And now, after all these months, I have to see this unfounded allegation (no offense to you @naru) become graffiti on my multisig inclusion thread, after I did all I was asked to do.
Not a nice way to thank someone who spontaneously gave regular contributions, passion and ideas to the community.

*Finally, if endorsement is not ok when it comes to ethdev previously expressing support for me, then also public-bashing shall not be ok when rezan says he won’t vet me. You want a no-endorsement policy - then add a no-antiendorsement one as well. *
I’d honestly leave both as multisig holders shall be free to OPENLY share with the community their support or lackthereof for anything related to the community.

This is my response; I hope it clarifies your doubts @naru and would like to hear what @ethdev and @rezan think. I have been open and transparent, and put a lot of time participating here, I hope my response will change your mind @rezan and dismiss any doubts you might have @ethdev and @naru around my genuinity.

You had the choice to show voters here “Show who voted”, but you didn’t.

  • votes “for” were consistent with my overall community participation since beginning of the year, this not in one but in two different polls (thus unlikely artificially inflated)**

As I said previously, an influx of votes inflated the “Yes” votes before you closed, I think @rezan can verify this as he is an admin.

Do disagree however in what you say on “suspicious inflow in the last minutes before it was closed”, haven’t seen that but my word against yours there.

Again, @rezan can verify.

What, however, comes to me as a big kick in the teeth, is hearing @rezan saying he won’t vet for me after all these months I have been active in the forum.
Not only @rezan entirely dismisses the point that him, as a multisig holder, shall not withold any power other than signing for the community will, but he suggests that even though I have been quite active here, both my polls could have been manipulated to my advantage (even though their results are consistent with my forum participation).

@rezan, as a community member, has the right to disagree with you illegitimately entering the multisig without the will of the community (through real votes), the tornado community does not owe anything to anyone.

Furthermore, @rezan is now a multisig holder as a result of soft-consensus expression of the community in which the community has agreed on my inclusion as much as they have agreed on his. Of course as a dev close to poma he was the most highly voted, whereas I am just an independent community member with a passion for privacy - but my point is why do I need a snapshot vote, when the polls simply reflected my overall involvement with the community?

If you are sure that the community want you as a multisig, then you will have no problem on the snapshot vote I guess.

Put yourself in my shoes guys.
I have participated in the TC community for months, started a thread to create the multisig even uploading some code, then (my fault here) had 4 weeks of unexpected personal life issues to sort out and on my return what I find?
Rezan, ethdev and Justin (whom I highly respect but whom never was involved with TC before) as the members of that multisig, with my request to join being denied.
And now, after all these months, I have to see this unfounded allegation (no offense to you @naru) become graffiti on my multisig inclusion thread, after I did all I was asked to do.
Not a nice way to thank someone who spontaneously gave regular contributions, passion and ideas to the community.

I don’t think you’re looking at it the right way. Personally, as a community member, I don’t think your commitment was equivalent to @rezan’s. Writing a lot on a forum, liking posts and reading a lot of articles does not make one a multisig by any means. The community will vote and if they decide you should become a multisig, you will be one. Again, if you’re so sure that you deserve to be a multisig, I don’t see any problem to wait for the snapshot.

Thank you for your answer, but as I have seen this influx with my own eyes, I can’t believe you.

Only one question for you.
Being one of the 3 most active community members whom agreed to be in the multisig, why shall I have needed to rig a poll to manufacture soft consensus?

Anyway, answering your queries (even though it looks like you have already taken your epistemological cartoon making trajectory):

Yes and now in handsight I can tell it was a mistake as it opened space for allegations such as yours [edit: if possible, I would be very happy for rezan to make those voters public in order to remove any doubt]. I just opened the poll quickly as I was discussing the matter privately with ethdev and didn’t gave the poll much importance there and then as I felt like it would have been just a formality, since the entire multisig thread and the previous poll consensus and my place in the community were already there.
Do note that in the other poll Setting up a multisig; initial EOI and preferences survey votes were open and yet there were still support for my nomination.

[quote=“naru, post:24, topic:998”]
As I said previously, an influx of votes inflated the “Yes” votes before you closed, I think @rezan can verify this as he is an admin.
Again, @rezan can verify.[/quote]
Not according to what I remember; votes “for”,“undecided” and “against” increased pretty much linearly throughout the days the poll remained open.
Anyway you seem to entirely dismiss the fact there were only 2 votes “against”, which is one of my pivotal points. If I had to be someone in need to rig a poll, there shall have been significantly more negatives for which there’s no way to do any trick.

Yes - anyone can surely as a community member express their dissent as you are doing right now, but this shall not be put in terms of “won’t sign on this” if that community member is also a multisig holder.

The “kick in the teeth” part; was just sharing my feelings after all these months of putting my energies into this. I get you’re not my shrink, but it really hurted to read that.

Achieving consensus requires energy from the community, whom has already voted for my inclusion not once but twice, and has voted on a proposal. I think people are ok with me being in as it clearly showed and as my records suggest, but I don’t think anyone would give an arm and a leg to have me in, and requiring the community to go through a snapshot vote AGAIN to get me in is unnecessary. It would likely result in not enough participation in it at this stage.

Never said my commitment was equivalent to rezan’s nor ethdev, as these are two giants of TC. I am an independent guy active on twitter and big on privacy, not afraid to express controversial ideas (on a few occasions disagreed on the forum even with rezan).
However smaller than them I was the next one in orders of magnitude, still undeniably “there” since a long time, thus the allegation of me requiring to rig a poll is preposterous.

I don’t think optionsmate pumped his poll votes, the guy has been here since the beginning. I thought the voting was for the four of you to get in the multisig and that’s what I’d like to see, with @b1ttba as fifth member added later on. But one thing I just found out and completely disagree with all of you is the 100 torn EACH the members will get EVERY MONTH. WTF. That’s a lot of money to do small work, torn investors will be the ones to pay for it, I think it’s way too much and will destroy torn price even more. This fucking greedy attitude is the plague of defi let’s be honest guys.

1 Like

Come on man…

  1. I am sure @EtherMuchacho is one of your Fake account that you used for voting (created 4 days ago, just before you lock the vote, sounds weird, no?)

  2. The vote choices were : yes, no, undecided until return to regular cadence.

Undecided until return to regular cadence IS NOT yes. It is people that are not ok with you as a multisig, they are UNDECIDED.

So you have:
2 No + 9 indecided = 11 that do not said yes.

And you have 9 yes, which are, I am waiting for @rezan to confirm it, half from your fake accounts such as @EtherMuchacho which you used for :

a. Answer to your message here, directly : Proposal #7: Tornado Cash Community Fund - #10 by EtherMuchacho

b. Then you used it here : Proposal #7: Tornado Cash Community Fund - #10 by EtherMuchacho

I am sure you could be much smarter next time to fool us. But here it is too big. You can’t fool the entire community.
I am done with this discussion, I gave my opinion. In my eyes you are not honest.

@ethermuchacho
Thank you a lot for the first part of your message but as I expected it backfired on me (not your fault, anything here seems to be used against me by @naru). In relation to the second part of your post, you raise a fair concern around token price, but FYI I personally wouldn’t need any TORN for my inclusion in the multisig (and never said that was a condition for me to get in, for the record).

@naru
Sure, I run 90% of the accounts of this forum, including ethdev’s account that’s why he initially expressed support for me, and every single one of those who liked my posts since beginning of the year. Anyone else who will also reply in this thread in my support is also, unequivocally an alt account that I need to manufacture consensus.

In relation to “undecided unless return to regular cadence” you are playing with words. It means what it means, which is neither unconditional yes nor unconditional no.
Anyway @naru, what started as a pretty reasonable dialogue with you is going in a direction which I don’t think is producing any results.

What I’m saying is you and the others went in when these 100 torn were stipulated in this thread, neither of you opposed it. I’d be ok if it was a smaller amount but 100 torn each… are ya out of ya fukkin mind guys? You gotta do something about it if you care about investors.

Bruh I’m not him, I voted for him but don’t care about small politics. I just want the multisignature but in a way that doesn’t fuck torn price even more than it is already.

Verifying that all three of these statements are accurate

I must state I had a nearly identical situation of absence to @optionsmate around the same time, and I was not penalized for it. My personal timeline to compare to @optionsmate:

  • February 14th - I opened the renumeration thread which led to the decision to pursue a community multisig fund
  • March 9th - my last post until a personal emergency arose in my life. Worth noting that my last post before my absence was actually in response to a proposal authored by @optionsmate
  • April 20th - During the time of my absence @optionsmate created the poll to refine the details of the multisig, including a nomination of community members. He, @Rezan, and me were the only 3 feasible candidates
  • May 4th - I returned from my personal emergency to find all the work @optionsmate put in to continue the multisig conversation while I was absent. I made a public statement in the thread recognizing my absence and begin the formal process with @Rezan to create the multisig

I was absent for 8 weeks before being given the responsibility of multisig holder. Similarly, before he had any responsibility or obligation @optionsmate was absent for 4 weeks. Half as long as me.

I support this policy

I personally do not have any doubt. I just need to reserve my personal opinion so that I am able to sign at the will of the community. I hope I can provide objective responses to help moderate this conversation

  1. Before there were any nominations at all, I was the first person to bring up the idea of renumerating multisig holders on Feb 26th, asking for community input (i) if this should be done and (ii) if so how much. No direct responses were made
  2. After I was nominated - on May 4th - I brought up the subject again to say we should really talk about it now before anything is executed. Still no responses
  3. I brought it up a third time on May 20th and finally took the lead to make a proposal of 0.125% of vesting funds per signer, limited to 1 year
  4. Lastly, it is included in the OP of this thread for every voter to have read before voting

The 0.125% of funds would have worked out to 343.75 initial TORN + 114.5 TORN per month. There were no objects. However, @Rezan and I discussed it in the DMs and felt it was still too high even though no one said so, and we abandoned the initial 343.75 TORN altogether and rounded the 114.5 TORN down to 100 TORN.

If you feel this is renumeration should be different, then you (and anyone else) is invited to create new thread in the Funding category titled Multisig Amendment Proposal: Change Signer Renumeration to <X>. We are always open to change