I hear you eek637 and agree that makes sense. I think ultimately this isn’t a judgement or statement about the security of all multisigs or self-custody generally, but rather a judgement about a relatively unique situation: it’s a lot of money and the holders of the multisig are publicly named as opposed to being anon or pseudonymous, which I think would alleviate significantly the risk to the multisig and the safety/security of the multisig hodlers if that makes sense.
1 Like
Frankly it would be less insulting at this point to simply abscond with the funds rather than slowly bleeding it for fees with whatever custodian you’ve already partnered with.
At least that way you wouldn’t be suggesting that well established DEFI practices are insecure and actively working against your supposed mandate.
1 Like
I’m not trying to wind you up here, but this is not a unique situation, and it is exactly the situation that the holders of this multisig signed up for.
Not sure we’ll get any further in this thread, but if the Snapshot passes I’d love to help work on a framework for what you’re looking for in decentralized setup, with the goal of checking in periodically to measure the state of the currently-available tools. Ultimately, it would be great to have some sort of commitment to move these funds back to DeFi. Believe you’ve got a line of communication with my boss @elisafly; if you’re interested in pursuing let’s connect.
1 Like
Are there any updates as to the custodian that will be used for the DEF wallet? Also, do you plan to implement a similar concept to Safeguard down the line that the Uniswap community should be able to recall these funds (on some scheduled basis) should they be unhappy with DEF’s progress? Would that not be reliant on trust in the DEF team to turn over the funds?
1 Like
The snapshot has ended and the result is that the, “No, it should not be moved” option won. Therefore, we can consider the proposal as a resolved matter.
4 Likes