OpenZeppelin Continuous Audit & Security Services Proposal
01Summary
OpenZeppelin is seeking approval to provide Compound DAO with continuous audit and security services for one year at a cost of $1 million USD in COMP per quarter ($4 million total). Services include audits of governance proposals, security monitoring, documented checklists, and a security dashboard. The proposal represents one of three competing audit service proposals under a competitive selection process.
- Type
- treasury allocation
- Funding
- $$4,000,000
Key changes
- Allocation of $1 million USD in COMP per quarter for OpenZeppelin continuous audit and security services(high)
- Establishment of dedicated Security Advisor role to coordinate OpenZeppelin services with Compound DAO and community(high)
- Implementation of security monitoring dashboard and documented security checklists for proposal authors(medium)
- Integration of future security components including formal verification, bug bounties, and white hat monitoring(medium)
Notable concerns
- Proposal is part of a competitive selection process with other audit firms; only the proposal with the most 'For' votes will be approved and the others will be cancelled
- Payment mechanism uses streaming grant structure based on community forum feedback
- Voters are instructed to vote only once for their preferred proposal among the three competing options
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
OpenZeppelin Continuous Audit & Security Services Proposal
Summary
The Compound DAO’s long-term security requires a comprehensive and continuous set of audit and security solutions to prevent loss of funds and protect its reputation resulting from risks to the Compound protocol, specifically those introduced by community-proposed upgrades
OpenZeppelin will provide dedicated continuous audit services for all Compound governance proposals and will work with the Compound community to develop comprehensive security requirements and to implement best practice security monitoring.
OpenZeppelin's services will be coordinated by a dedicated Security Advisor who along with the OpenZeppelin team, the Compound DAO and the community will work to:
- Improve the overall process to ensure the security of community proposed upgrades to the Compound Protocol
- Provide continuous audits and dedicated resources to respond rapidly to all community proposed upgrades and changes
- Coordinate the creation of documented security checklists and requirements that can be shared with all proposal authors
- Implement an open security monitoring and security dashboard solution that will allow the community to validate security
- Integrate, support, and analyze other possible future important security program components such as formal verification, bug bounties, and white hat monitoring approved by the DAO.
The combined effort of the OpenZeppelin team, the Security Advisor, and the Compound community will thereby reduce potential security risks and further assure the DAOs trusted reputation.
OpenZeppelin has revised its original proposal to focus on community feedback and excludes performance fees. OpenZeppelin’s fee will be the equivalent of $1 million USD in COMP every quarter for one year. This fee covers all services defined in the proposal. Payment will be made using a streaming grant based on recommendations given by community member feedback on the forum. Please see our full revised proposal here:
We believe that no other firm in the market can bring the same breadth and depth of offerings to the DAO. We provide best-in-class continuous auditing and security advisory services; established leadership in secure development and secure operations; and external relationships and partnerships at a cost to value no other firm can match.
We would be honored to partner with the Compound DAO to not only deliver continuous auditing but to also work together to be leaders and innovators in how to securely and efficiently run an effective DAO security program!
Voting Instructions: Audit Selection Process
All three audit proposals will be submitted to governance and voted on by the community. The proposal with the most "For" votes will win and the community multisig will then cancel the losing proposals after the vote is completed. Please only vote YES once for your preferred proposal.
See the complete Forum discussion for more details
03Mismatch analysis
placeholder
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0x3d98…cd3b
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- _setContributorCompSpeed(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0x57C970568668087c05352456a3F59B58B0330066", "1": "6512496870948770" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
| Voter | Choice | % of total | Rationale | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9A0x9aa8…ccf1 | For | 321K | 23.38% | — | 5y ago |
| EA0xea6c…3bf7 | For | 306K | 22.28% | — | 5y ago |
| 610x6125…96de | For | 256.8K | 18.70% | — | 5y ago |
| 810x8169…9806 | For | 101K | 7.35% | — | 5y ago |
| 3E0x3e41…c049 | For | 66K | 4.81% | — | 5y ago |
| 5B0x5bc9…d76c | For | 63.3K | 4.61% | — | 5y ago |
| 450x458c…730e | For | 50K | 3.64% | — | 5y ago |
| DC0xdc1f…e432 | For | 50K | 3.64% | — | 5y ago |
| 070x0703…961b | For | 50K | 3.64% | — | 5y ago |
| F60xf63e…78c8 | For | 49.1K | 3.58% | — | 5y ago |
| A10xa118…e5db | For | 33K | 2.40% | — | 5y ago |
| 9B0x9b68…2984 | For | 11.1K | 0.80% | — | 5y ago |
| 900x905c…e25a | For | 5K | 0.36% | — | 5y ago |
| 520x5274…59d2 | For | 4.8K | 0.35% | — | 5y ago |
| A50xa5dc…d648 | Against | 3.3K | 0.24% | — | 5y ago |
| 760x7641…b609 | For | 2.9K | 0.21% | — | 5y ago |
| 840x84e3…5a95 | For | 165.2 | 0.01% | — | 5y ago |
| D20xd2cb…b9a9 | For | 98.5 | 0.01% | — | 5y ago |
| 660x66cd…65f9 | Against | 13.4 | 0.00% | — | 5y ago |
| 6C0x6c51…76d3 | For | 0 | 0.00% | — | 5y ago |
07Forum
- Auditing Compound Protocol ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- Compound urgently needs a continuous, professional audit process for governance proposals to prevent a repeat of the Proposal 62 exploit.— sukernik, dvf, jamico, getty, OZSecure
- Shifting the audit burden from individual contributors to a protocol-funded service will speed development and reduce risk of unreviewed code reaching governance votes.— sukernik, dvf, OZSecure, dguido
- Top-tier firms like OpenZeppelin and Trail of Bits have deep, proven experience auditing Compound and the broader DeFi ecosystem, making them credible partners.— jamico, annamira, dvf, TylerEther
- A layered security approach combining audits, education, threat monitoring, and advisory services adds value beyond simple ad-hoc auditing.— OZSecure, jamico, dguido
- A short (quarterly-renewable) engagement lets the DAO evaluate vendor performance and adjust or cancel the arrangement relatively quickly.— jamico, OZSecure
- Running a competitive, multi-vendor selection process (OZ, Trail of Bits, ChainSecurity) validates that the DAO is getting fair value and sets a template for future B2DAO deals.— sukernik, jamico, Rk2357, getty
Arguments against
- The proposed fees (originally $8M/year) are far higher than market rates for comparable audit work, based on historical proposal volume and cost.— getty, allthecolors, dvf
- The performance fee structure is poorly aligned with incentives, since auditors would almost certainly collect it regardless of effort or actual security outcomes.— dvf, allthecolors, arr00
- Streaming indefinite COMP payments to a vendor is inappropriate; compensation should be periodic and re-authorized by governance each term.— arr00, allthecolors
- OpenZeppelin's proposal scope crept well beyond the original request (education, monitoring, dashboards) and should have been split into separate proposals.— allthecolors, jared, dguido
- The process felt rushed and favored a single vendor (OZ) due to a pre-existing conflict of interest with the proposer, undermining fair competition.— allthecolors, dguido, JacobPPhillips
- Relying solely on external auditors ignores the deeper problem that Compound lacks internal QA, PM, and development process discipline.— RexShinka, dvf
- A single-vendor, lump-sum model risks vendor lock-in and conflicts of interest; a decentralized multi-auditor 'audit suite' approach would better scale with protocol complexity.— HRitzdorf, jared, Emilie_ChainSecurity
Unresolved concerns
- Whether the final agreed price (even after removing the performance fee) truly reflects fair market value for the services rendered.— getty, dvf, allthecolors
- How Compound will fund ongoing security services once the COMP distribution schedule runs out in the long term.— allthecolors
- Lack of a formal, repeatable process or governance mechanism for evaluating and selecting among competing vendor proposals.— sukernik, ratankaliani, JacobPPhillips
- Whether Compound should invest in building an internal security/dev team rather than depending entirely on external auditors long-term.— RexShinka, dvf, HRitzdorf
- Governance's inability to natively support multi-option or batched proposal voting, forcing reliance on an ad hoc community multisig process for vendor selection.— ratankaliani, JacobPPhillips, arr00
Notable participants
- sukernikInitiated the proposal process, disclosed conflicts of interest, and organized the multi-vendor selection procedure.
- OZSecureRepresented OpenZeppelin, submitted and repeatedly revised the primary competing proposal, and defended its pricing and scope.
- dguidoRepresented Trail of Bits, submitted a competing proposal and pushed back on process fairness and OZ's approach.
- gettyRaised the earliest and most detailed pricing critique of OZ's proposal.
- dvfFrequent commenter providing security-industry perspective, critiqued performance fee incentives, and ultimately compared and endorsed OZ over Trail of Bits.
- allthecolorsProvided the most thorough critique of process, conflicts of interest, scope creep, and cost/payment structure.
- HRitzdorfRepresented ChainSecurity, proposed an alternative decentralized multi-auditor 'audit suite' model.
- jamicoRepresented a16z, supported OZ's proposal, and helped broker the fair competitive process timeline.
- jaredRaised questions about audit scope, timing, and favored a more comprehensive, process-oriented long-term solution.
- Emilie_ChainSecurityClarified and defended ChainSecurity's multi-auditor 'audit suite' proposal in response to community questions.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- compounddefeatedSecurity Solutions For Compound Governance85%
- compoundexecutedOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - 2022 Q2 Adjustment V479%
- compoundcanceledOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - 2022 Q2 Adjustment V377%
- compoundcanceledOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - 2022 Q2 Adjustment77%
- compoundexecutedOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - Annual Renewal 202577%
- compoundcanceledOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - 2022 Q2 Adjustment V277%
- compoundcanceledOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - Annual Renewal 202577%
- compoundexecutedFinalize Security Service Provider Engagement (2025)75%
- compoundexecutedOpenZeppelin Security Partnership - Annual Renewal 202474%
- compoundexecutedWOOF! <> Compound 202567%