Lower Proposal Threshold to 10K COMP
01Summary
Proposal to reduce Compound's proposal threshold from its current level to 10K COMP, enabling 29 additional EOAs to propose and lowering the barrier to entry for governance participation. Also updates the GovernorBravoDelegate implementation and reimburses 5 COMP for gas fees.
- Type
- parameter change
- Funding
- $5 COMP
Key changes
- Reduce proposal threshold to 10K COMP, enabling 29 additional EOAs to propose(high)
- Update GovernorBravoDelegate implementation to set minimum setable proposal threshold to 1K COMP for future threshold adjustments(medium)
- Grant 5 COMP to Ratan to reimburse gas fees for deploying new GovernorBravoDelegate contract(low)
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
Lower Proposal Threshold to 10K COMP
Simple Summary
A proposal to reduce Compound's proposal threshold to 10K.
Overview
Governor Bravo enables Compound’s community to change the proposal threshold & over the past several months we’ve seen several key issues that we believe warrant lowering the proposal threshold.
Based off of community feedback, we believe that reducing the proposal threshold to 10K provides an important step in the right direction. This new threshold enables 29 additional EOAs to propose, empowering more community members to participate in governance & programmatically reducing the barrier to entry for delegates.
Full Proposal and Forum Discussion
Technical Details
- Changes the minimum setable proposal threshold in GovernorBravoDelegate to 1K (simplifies lowering the proposal threshold in the future). Updates GovernorBravoDelegate implementation from here to here (identical besides the minimum setable proposal threshold constant).
- Reduces proposal threshold to 10K.
- Grants 5 COMP to Ratan to reimburse gas fees for deploying the new GovernorBravoDelegate contract.
The proposal simulation can be found here.
03Mismatch analysis
Compared each decoded action against the three technical steps in the description. Action 0 upgrades the Governor implementation to the exact address linked in the description as the new contract with the lowered minimum settable threshold (1K), matching point 1 (the internal 1K minimum change itself is bytecode-level and not separately visible in calldata, but the upgrade target matches the linked contract). Action 1 sets the proposal threshold to 10,000 * 1e18, exactly matching the stated '10K' reduction. Action 2 grants 5 * 1e18 COMP (5 COMP) to a specific address, consistent with the stated gas reimbursement to Ratan; the recipient address cannot be independently verified as Ratan's wallet from the data given, but the amount and action type match exactly. No value, target, or scope mismatches were found, and no significant on-chain action is omitted from the description. Overall the proposal narrative faithfully represents the three on-chain actions with no material or misleading differences.
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0xc0da…6529
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- _setImplementation(address)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0x30065B703DE5d473975A2db5bBB790A23FD6EFbD" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0xc0da…6529
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- _setProposalThreshold(uint256)
- Arguments
{ "0": "10000000000000000000000" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0x3d98…cd3b
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- _grantComp(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0xcf0Ef02C51438C821246f2e6ADe50e0F1CB0f385", "1": "5000000000000000000" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
No votes recorded yet.
07Forum
- Lower Proposal Thresholds v2 ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- Current delegates holding fewer than 65K COMP cannot create or support Crowd Autonomous Proposals, effectively excluding them from governance participation.— ratankaliani
- Lowering the threshold reduces friction for proposal creation and helps increase token-holder engagement and sense of ownership in governance long-term.— ratankaliani
- A community poll indicated support for lowering the threshold, and the final proposal reflects a weighted average of community votes.— ratankaliani, Dzen
- Lowering the threshold to 50K (or similar) is a reasonable next step given the current threshold only allows 12 addresses to propose.— GFXlabs
- The CAP contract's compStakeAmount limit should also be lowered incrementally (e.g., to 10 COMP) to allow smaller holders to participate, since it is external to the protocol and largely arbitrary.— allthecolors, GFXlabs, ratankaliani
Arguments against
- Lowering the proposal threshold makes it easier to introduce malicious or attack-style proposals, as exemplified by Proposal 84 (the Justin Sun governance attack incident).— rleshner
- Given Compound manages over $10B in assets, proposal creation should be made harder, not easier, especially after the Proposal 62 bug incident.— rleshner
- The existing whitelist mechanism already makes proposal creation sufficiently accessible for proposals with community support, so lowering the token threshold is unnecessary.— rleshner
Unresolved concerns
- What alternative mechanisms could mitigate protocol security risks instead of relying on a COMP-based proposal threshold was raised but not answered.— kleong
- The risk that a lowered threshold could enable more governance attacks similar to Proposal 84 was raised without a clear mitigation proposed.— rleshner
- The implications of allowing anyone to deploy alternative CAP contracts with arbitrarily low thresholds were noted but not fully explored.— ratankaliani, allthecolors
Notable participants
- ratankalianiProposer from Blockchain at Berkeley who initiated the discussion, ran the community poll, and ultimately submitted the proposal to lower the threshold to 25K.
- GFXlabsEarly supporter who endorsed lowering the threshold to 50K and commented on the CAP contract limit.
- allthecolorsSuggested a more gradual, order-of-magnitude reduction to the CAP threshold and engaged in technical discussion about the CAP contract.
- DzenExpressed general enthusiasm and support for the proposal and governance evolution.
- rleshnerCore community voice who raised strong security concerns and announced opposition to the proposal, citing past governance attack risks.
- kleongRaised a follow-up question about alternative security mitigations in response to rleshner's concerns.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- compoundexecutedLower Proposal Threshold to 25K COMP98%
- compoundexecutedLower Proposal Threshold to 65,000 COMP85%
- compoundexecutedCompound Governor Contracts Upgrade73%
- compoundexecutedMigration to Governor Bravo71%
- compoundcanceledThis proposal will upgrade Compound's GovernorBravoDelegator and GovernorBravoDelegate contracts. We'll use the latest contracts from OpenZeppelin(OZ) library with some modifications to preserve many…69%
- compounddefeatedCompound Governor Bravo Update69%
- compoundexecutedAddress Whitelist for Submitting Proposals68%
- compoundexecutedAdd Proposal Guardian to Governor Bravo66%
- compoundexecutedGovernance Analysis Period63%
- compoundexecutedEnable Sending ETH from Timelock (Revised)62%