Changing the workflow for executable proposals

The current workflow for executable proposals is Draft → Snapshot Vote → Onchain Vote. This means that it takes 14 days (5 day snapshot vote + 7 day onchain vote + 2 day timelock) for an executable proposal to pass, and requires two votes from delegates.

The nominal reason for this is that we don’t want delegates to have to waste ETH on gas fees for proposals that are sure to fail; preflighting via snapshot ensures this doesn’t happen. Doing it this way extends the whole process, however, and instead requires more work from delegates by making them vote twice.

I’d like to propose a change: Executable votes can go straight from Draft to an onchain vote, but the proposer must put up a deposit in ENS - say 100 ENS for the sake of argument - that is forfeit if the proposal fails. The deposit could be sent to the DAO wallet or burned.

This should strongly discourage submission of votes that are not likely to pass, while making the whole process faster and easier for everyone. Posting a deposit could even take the place of the current 100k vote requirement to be able to propose a vote.

If this was approved, we’d need to deploy a new governor contract to encode these rules, but the changes should be relatively straightforward.



I really like this idea. One of the hurdles in working in a decentralized fashion is that it’s, even in a best case scenario, quite slow. This would help speed things up so that we don’t have to spend time jumping through hoops for proposals that are very likely to pass.

I also generally like the idea of a deposit more than a 100k vote requirement, as it can theoretically enable more users to bring things to a vote by assuming a risk in doing so.

I consider it a win/win and I’m strongly for this.

1 Like

I support this.

Agree, plus this is better from a focus perspective as well.

Skin the game. Love this.

As a point of reference for others there are 17 delegates that meet the 100k threshold.

@Nick I’m in favor of this temp-check, but caution removing the 100k vote requirement.

We should keep the deposit requirement high enough so that we don’t increase risk of attack. The deposit is a detractor for honest parties, but if I can collude to take over the treasury it would negate the deposit entirely. Can we ensure the new governor contract will have modifiable threshold so we can make adjustments if the market price swings wildly?

1 Like

I like the sentiment, but like @Coltron.eth said, 100 ENS being the only barrier to submitting an executable proposal is trivial, when you consider what could potentially be gained given sufficient voter collusion. But it is admittedly tricky to balance safety with accessibility. I’m in favor of skipping the Snapshot for executables proposals though.

Cost of 67% attack on DAO treasury stands at $200 million with > 99% certainty. 3-sigma cost of attack is much lower at around 65 million. That narrates to: someone with $65 million in pocket stands a 68% chance of successfully taking over ENS treasury. At $150 million, likelihood of success is 95%. Not a bad play if Sifu is reading this :grin:


I don’t think this is true. If someone has enough votes to pass a malicious proposal, the minimum vote threshold is not a barrier. Both the threshold and the deposit serve as barriers to posting spammy proposals; only voting is sufficient to defeat a malicious one.

Hello everybody.

I am not sure if my comment can be made here and or would be valid , however from reading into the thread it’s my understanding that you guys want to basically speed up decision making while also retaining trusted votes / “attack” so to speak.?

What if there was a system where by each delegate had a sliding scale of preference towards an outcome - ie scale of 1-10 how much they agree with a vote . Rather than the binary yes/no ?

Also, could it be possible to open up some votes to the wider communities ? Or specific ENS holders for example that have shown vested interested by things like setting sub domains, adding to the records, setting avatars etc…surely all of that data can be acquired in a snap shot ?

Obviously as I’m sure you are aware there is a current frenzy/hype/mania happening across the board with ENS - it seems that many alliances / clubs / call it what you like are being formed around ideals that lack a real sense of what ENS is and or can be…I feel as if there needs to be far more time spent on education and alike directly from people either within the DAO or actual verified community stewards who get paid / compensated for the time, on and around Twitter spaces - being what seems to be the front lines…?

There are plenty of people talking, building and educating every day out there who I feel would be very valuable in voting…again these people have their ears to the ground so to speak.

Hope that made some sense and or added some value to this matter.

Have a good weekend !

PS. Coltron.eth & Ginge.eth - I sent you a message regarding the pfps and would love a reply if possible. Thanks guys!

P.S.S @nick.eth I airdropped you a custom ENS avatar as well. But assumed it would be in your hidden folder.

Thanks again! :grinning:

1 Like

@nick.eth I agree that this would streamline proposals and make it more accessible, while maintaining the quality of proposals as well.

Agree. @matoken.eth has mentioned the need for Education on his Twitter Thread. The Learn Docs is a great place to start.

For reference:

1 Like

I think this makes sense. The extra time and effort for a snapshot doesn’t make much sense if the process is just duplicated on-chain. The deposit in ENS also seems like a good idea to me too.