Proposed: December 2, 2023
Status: Failed
Insiders have implemented a system to prevent farmers from proposing BIPs without growing through the devs (not how the farm was intended to be set up!). This is meant to be - BIP-40: Require BCM to Reveal Current Multisig Signers
Farmers must understand the identity of the current multisig signers as the community believes that several signers are affiliated with a bot controlling the growth of the protocol. A signer having control of the protocol and using a bot to time transactions is equivalent to insider trading and should be handled appropriately (removed as a signer).
Several bot operators (some of whom are in direct contact and affiliated with current BFC members) have direct knowledge of development timelines and product development that help maximize their current stakes while keeping this information hidden from the broader farmer community to react and operate on the same playing field.
"When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense – to fight the government.” — Alexander Hamilton
Beanstalk Farmer (not a troll or proposal based on frustration as WILL BE noted by BFC minions to delegitimize the proposal)
Reveal the multisig signers. Voting for the signers to be revealed DOES NOT mean the signers will be doxxed! Simply their community handles can be revealed, or if a business is one of the signers, simply their business name (e.g many multisigs in DeFi have investment funds as one of their signers).
Quorum is 50% of total outstanding Stalk participating in the vote.
- Reveal Current Multisig Signers
- Don'tReveal Current Multisig Signers
The BCM is an extension of the Beanstalk DAO. As such, BCM’s role is to 1) enact on-chain the decisions Stalk holders make via off-chain voting and 2) review and verify proposals to ensure the suggested changes are truthfully represented.
The BCM shall not execute transactions until an associated Snapshot successfully passes in favor of the proposal, except in the case of emergency or canceling a failed transaction.
BFP-73 proposed that a multisig should take over control of the admin functionality of Beanstalk.
However, the proposal lead to all the signers of the multisig being anonymous and chosen by Publius. The community has raised concerns that there is no ability to verify the existence of these individuals, and must trust Publius both has not chosen sybil identities and can safely guard the identity of these individuals (since anonymity is the motivation for their proposal).
The team posturing that anonymous signers are of upmost importance, while having a doxxed entity (Publius) knowing all of the signers identities seems counterintuitive. The motivation behind anonymous signers is to be said to prevent entities such as governments to deploy malicious code to Beanstalk. However, this can lead to a scenario where said entity compels Publius to reveal the signers' identities without being able to inform anyone of the compromise. Now only the malicious entity knows of the identities and the community has no way to respond.
This proposal postures that some or all multisig signers should have their pseudonymous identities revealed, in order to provide transparency to the community on the legitimacy of the signers.
NOTE: Voting for the signers to be revealed DOES NOT mean the signers will be doxxed! Simply their community handles can be revealed, or if a business is one of the signers, simply their business name (e.g many multisigs in DeFi have investment funds as one of their signers).
A signer having control of the protocol and using a bot to time transactions is equivalent to insider trading and should be handled appropriately (removed as a signer).