Compound Finance faces a tumultuous community disagreement over governance, with allegations of a ‘governance attack’ following recent proposals by a voting bloc known as the “Golden Boys.”
Points
- Recent Compound Finance proposals spark allegations of a governance attack.
- Proposal 289 passed, increasing COMP requested to 499,000.
- Governance concerns arise from the influence of the “Golden Boys” voting bloc.
Compound Finance, a decentralized lending and borrowing protocol, is currently embroiled in a significant community disagreement over governance. This follows a series of recent proposals that have led to allegations of a governance attack by a voting bloc known as the “Golden Boys.”
Governance Attack Allegations: The controversy began with the passage of Proposal 289 on July 28, which increased the amount of COMP requested to fund the goldCOMP treasury from 92,000 to 499,000. This proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 682,191 votes in favor and 633,636 against.
The Compound governance message boards were rife with warnings about a potential governance attack in the days leading up to the vote. The allegations stem from concerns that the “Golden Boys,” a powerful voting bloc, could exert undue influence over the protocol’s governance.
Proposal Details and Community Reaction: Proposal 289, championed by the “Golden Boys,” seeks to allocate 499,000 COMP to the goldCOMP treasury. This amount is significantly higher than previous requests and has raised alarms among other governance participants.
Michael Lewellen of the OpenZeppelin bloc, under the username “cylon,” described the proposal as a potential governance attack, expressing concern over the centralization of funds and decision-making power.
In response to these concerns, Proposal 290, titled “Precautionary Transfer of Timelock Admin,” was introduced. This proposal aims to transfer the Compound Governance Timelock Admin to “CommunityMultiSig,” a move intended to stymie future efforts similar to the “Golden Boys” proposals.
解説
- The allegations of a governance attack highlight the challenges faced by decentralized protocols in maintaining balanced and fair governance.
- The influence of powerful voting blocs like the “Golden Boys” can lead to centralization, undermining the decentralized ethos of the protocol.
- Proposal 290’s attempt to transfer the Timelock Admin to a community-controlled multisig wallet is a strategic move to protect the protocol from potential centralization risks.
- Community members and investors should closely monitor governance proposals and participate actively to ensure the protocol remains decentralized and secure.