All of the alternatives we were aware of at the time would have required a DAO vote for each sale, which was judged to be an undue burden on delegates.
I don’t think that’s an undue burden. I would be happy to vote on each sale, and I can’t imagine it’s all that much work for a steward to put up a vote once per month (or whatever DCA period was decided).
For me, it is clear from this thread and current proposal outcome, that there’s consensus for ensuring runway by converting ETH to stablecoins.
The strategy for how to execute this trade is debatable.
A DCA strategy is not guaranteeing a better outcome than a single trade…
I personally think that in light of ENS current treasury composition which is heavily skewed toward ETH, and in light of the recent positive ETH price action - executing all at once is definitely a legitimate strategy.
Having said that, I wanted to note that it is possible to create a DCA-style order with the existing Milkman contracts. We’ve setup an example TWAP order for 2Ξ split evenly into 8 0.25Ξ parts every hour. They use the same infrastructure as the Milkman order that is currently proposed with an additional
validFrom check for each part
Here you can find a tutorial with code example on how to create and examine TWAP orders on CoW Protocol
Here are the individual order executions for each part
That was may understanding as well and the reason I supported Cowswap. You can use Milkman to create, say 100 sales of 100 ether (or even just 10 sales of 1000 ether, with a minimum starting time for each. We are already doing multi calls on the contract, don’t see why we can’t extend it that way.
You might be right. You may be wrong. We don’t know and that’s why I support multiple sales. It’s neutral.
Regarding the recent CowSwap vulnerability: I’ve looked into this myself, as well as reaching out to CowSwap and to Sam Sun. All of us are in agreement that the vulnerability does not affect this swap (or any other swap; it only affected CowSwap’s accumulated fees.)
Dear ENS community
The incident from this morning has probably captured the community attention.
For the sake of full transparency, we’ve posted a detailed post mortem here.
I’ll also provide a short tl;dr
- CoW Swap’s settlement contract stores only accrued fees, but never keeps user funds
- The protocol allows solvers to approve arbitrary contracts which helps them to provide users with best routes in real time
- This also exposes accrued fees (internal protocol funds) to some risks, which are mitigated by requiring solvers to post collateral as a security bond.
- The damage from today’s incident has already been fully covered by the bond of the responsible solver
- User funds were never at risk!!!
There was some misleading media coverage - we hope that this helps to clear up what really happened.
EP 3.3 passed and will be executed after a 2-day timelock.