[TEXT Proposal] Block Voting From External Contracts

Proposal: This is a TEXT proposal for Mirror stakeholders to signal their decision in the issue of smart contracts voting on mirror to farm voting rewards . I feel it’s important for the community to signal it’s decision here as this will help the newly created yield optimizer spec.finance make future roadmap decisions around it’s auto compounding strategies. And a vote here will also help guide future improvements to Mirror protocol that will prevent or allow such behaviors in the future.

More discussion on this issue can be found here .

A YES vote will signal support to block external contracts from voting on Mirror Governance proposals.

A NO vote will signal support for allowing external smart contracts to interact with Mirror Governance proposals.

This proposal is simply to gauge community sentiment on this issue and does not imply any immediate action. This is a controversial topic and ultimately impacts MIR holders. The outcome of this poll should help guide future yield optimizers who consider implementing governance farming strategies and potentially influence future improvements and/or safeguards to Mirror to avoid implications of such farming contracts.

Update:
Spec has withdrawn their proposal for vote farming on Mirror.
image

Poll: Mirror

Edit : Abbreviated No vote description as i had to shorten it for the Mirror poll
Edit 2: Spec has withdraw their proposal for Vote farming strategies.

Responded in original thread.

3 Likes

I also responded on original thread, but I wanted to add more here. This is a reactionary response to a non-threat.
Removing smart contracts from participation in governance (and its associated rewards) does meaningful damage to Mirror Protocols potential as a ‘money lego’ within the Terra ecosystem. It limits the potential creativity (and willingness) of additional protocols building on Mirror, because from the beginning they will be barred from participating in governance (or building their modules that enable representative participation within their own protocol stack).

It would be helpful to get an opinion from Spar protocol… I was planning to manage a small fund on it. I am significantly less likely to do so if that fund is barred from participation in governance. I’m sure I’m not the only manager that would have second thoughts upon this realization.

I have seen “whitelisting of particular contracts” as a compromise. In the context of Spar and others, each fund would be required to be whitelisted. What happens if a fund shows a voting record that is not always popular. Can that fund be de-whitelisted?

If there are going to be economic rewards to governance (incentives), which I think there should be, those rewards should be available to anyone that wishes to participate (even other smart contracts and protocols) even if (especially if) we disagree with how they choose to use their votes.

1 Like

For anyone just jumping in i would encourage you to check out the discussion thread where we cover the specific risks of such an implementation. The reason for the separate thread is to keep this formal proposal simple and to the point, with the main purpose of signaling community sentiment on this issue.

This was never an immediate threat , however it’s a fundamental issue with how governance proposals are interacted with. An issue brought on by plans of another protocol, but not at all specific to that protocol.

New to forum, apologies in advance for clumsiness.

It seems like there are infinite ways to game the system to accumulate voting rewards without reading proposals. There are already downloadable bots (so I hear on TerraBites) that will automatically vote MIR for a user’s wallets. If the problem is that proposals will pass that should otherwise die from not meeting quorum, maybe Abstain votes should not count toward quorum. Yes and No votes seems to be sufficient since rewards have been implemented. Congrats!

I share some of @josephsavage 's unease about white and blacklisting sites. I wonder if Mirror could create a secure pass-through voting template (or developer kit) as an upgrade to the ‘money lego’. If a protocol did not have to code it themselves from scratch, why wouldn’t they want to deploy it?

Thanks for your patience.

Hey fren, come on over to the discussion thread where we are brainstorming potential alternatives and requirements to avoid risk [Proposal- Discussion] Block Voting From External Contracts

1 Like