KVORUM
compoundSource: Compound governor bravo · #67

[Temp. Check] Should Compound retroactively distribute COMP tokens to early users?

defeatedNov 8, 2021, 05:08 AM UTCbyC80xc8a6…dffc

01Summary

AISummary by Kvorumclaude-haiku-4-5

Temperature check on whether Compound should retroactively distribute COMP tokens to early users. If passed, follow-up proposals will determine distribution details. No protocol changes occur regardless of outcome - this purely gauges community consensus.

Type
signaling

Key changes

  • Signaling vote on retroactive COMP token distribution to early users(high)
  • If passed, triggers follow-up proposals to determine distribution amount, model, and mechanism(high)

Notable concerns

  • Vote outcome determines whether treasury COMP tokens are allocated to early users or retained for protocol growth incentives
  • Actual distribution details remain undefined pending follow-up proposals if this signaling vote passes
Contracts0x3d9819210a31b4961b30ef54be2aed79b9c9cd3b
Generated by Kvorum
model: claude-haiku-4-5
provider: anthropic
profile: anthropic-fast-v1
prompt: v1.0
generated: 2mo ago
Read the description ↗

02Description

292 words

[Temp. Check] Should Compound retroactively distribute COMP tokens to early users?

This question has been debated and specifics have been worked on for about the past year by the community.

This proposal serves as a temperature check, ensuring that this initiative has sufficient support before making further proposals as to address how to distribute the token to early users.

The actions of this proposal are nil - the protocol does not change at all regardless of whether this proposal passes or fails. Rather, this proposal gauges consensus regarding the issue in the following way:

  • FOR: You believe COMP tokens should be distributed to early users in at least some amount and/or way.
  • AGAINST: You believe no amount of COMP tokens should be distributed to early users.

If this proposal...

  • PASSES: The community will continue its efforts in distributing COMP tokens to early users. A series of follow-up proposals will guide the community in finalizing the total amount, the distribution model, and the way in which the tokens are distributed.
  • FAILS: The community will abandon its efforts of this initiative.

A quick summary in support and opposition of this initiative:

  • FOR: Early users were key in Compound's success. Their early use of the protocol shaped it to be what it is today, and those users should be given the power to continue shaping the protocol. Compound should continue to decentralize ownership of the protocol by distributing voting power amongst its early community members and users.
  • AGAINST: Compound should use the tokens in the treasury as incentives for new work to continue growing the protocol.

Note: Since governance proposals require actions, a nil action has been provided.

Credits

Allthecolors et al.

References

03Mismatch analysis

AIMismatch analysis by Kvorumclaude-sonnet-5
Consistent

The description explicitly states this is a temperature-check proposal with no real protocol changes, and notes a 'nil action' was included only because governance proposals require at least one action. The single decoded action calls _setCompSpeeds with three empty arrays for addresses and speeds - this is a functionally inert call that does not modify any market's COMP speed or any other protocol parameter, matching the 'nil action' description precisely. There is no value transfer, no target mismatch, and no hidden state change. The calldata perfectly matches the stated intent of a no-op placeholder action for a sentiment-gauging proposal.

Generated by Kvorum
model: claude-sonnet-5
provider: anthropic
profile: anthropic-strong-v1
prompt: v1.0
generated: 2mo ago
Review the decoded actions ↗

04Actions

1 total
#0_setCompSpeeds(address[],uint256[],uint256[])chain 0x1
Target
0x3d98…cd3b
Value
0 wei
Function
_setCompSpeeds(address[],uint256[],uint256[])
Arguments
{
  "0": [],
  "1": [],
  "2": []
}
Calldata

05Tally

Summed from votes

Voters27
VP participating583.1K
Outcome (current)Against
Current support30.2%

06Voters

27 total
Filter:
VoterChoice% of totalRationale
880x88fb…3981Abstain105K18.01%—5y ago
540x54a3…e189For100.1K17.16%—5y ago
8D0x8d07…a265Abstain77.5K13.30%—5y ago
9B0x9b68…2984Against66.1K11.33%—5y ago
F60xf63e…78c8Against52.5K9.00%—5y ago
450x458c…730eAgainst50K8.58%—5y ago
130x13bd…8548Against50K8.58%—5y ago
DC0xdc1f…e432Against50K8.58%—5y ago
0A0x0a09…b92eFor15K2.57%—5y ago
2B0x2b38…bf33Against7.7K1.33%—5y ago
DAdakeshi.eth0xe3c9…6b21For5K0.86%—5y ago
A50xa5dc…d648Against3.3K0.56%—5y ago
340x34bb…bcc3For5000.09%—5y ago
C80xc8a6…dffcFor200.20.03%—5y ago
840x84e3…5a95For165.20.03%—5y ago
910x9140…3013For300.01%—5y ago
030x03f0…7618For260.00%—5y ago
660x66cd…65f9For13.40.00%—5y ago
D00xd021…1067For5.10.00%—5y ago
900x9053…3126For4.70.00%—5y ago
B10xb100…73fcFor2.80.00%—5y ago
450x4504…3424Against0.50.00%—5y ago
300x30c8…61bbFor0.40.00%—5y ago
880x88b3…1d42Abstain0.30.00%—5y ago
JTjthrack.eth0x44c6…aabdFor0.30.00%—5y ago
EC0xec44…bc41For0.20.00%—5y ago
CC0xccb8…070cFor00.00%—5y ago
Showing 27

07Forum

No forum thread is confidently linked to this proposal.