[Social] [EP2.2.5] Selection of an ENS endowment fund manager

[nicmm]

@Defi_Foodie

Could you please provide an example of deliberate low liquidity condition creation? I don’t think you’re referring to collusion between whales, are you?

I’d argue market manipulation is not easy (it’d be much more frequent if it were), but I think I see your point: “Greater restrictions reduce the chances of malicious actions from fund managers”.

Referring to the myriad of ways of manipulating liquidity on-chain: flash swaps, flash loans, etc. No whales necessary. Remember that in the case of AMM trades, it’s only necessary to manipulate the price for an instant of time. This is virtually risk free. This happens literally every day on-chain.

@Defi_Foodie

In case of emergency (and in any other case), we would never ask for unilateral powers, we’d have clear pre-approved restrictions that would allow us to act fast, as we have done several times with the assets we’ve been entrusted with.

The problem you’re missing here is that (absent additional smart contract controls) these two are equivalent, you are asking for unilateral powers and do not even realize it.

@claberus

A preset configuration only consists of a set of smart contract function signatures, target addresses, and input parameter thresholds, which are allowlisted through the Zodiac Roles mod via a transaction batch. Each of these allowlisting transactions is easily readable through any 4-byte decoder, clearly showing the configuration, e.g. a ‘deposit’ signature and its associated target address. These preset-applying transactions themselves are created using Zodiac’s tools and in collaboration with the Gnosis Guild team.

This approach is exactly the problem. Again, integrating a protocol only begins at whitelisting its entry points. Without intimate knowledge of how each protocol actually works at the smart contract level, you are asking to get burned.