Swapping BanklessDAO Multi-Signers [Temp Check]

Authors; Editors: senad.eth :black_flag:#8782; jengajojo​:black_flag:#5896, Trewkat#1933, links#7868, HiroKennellyᵍᵐ:black_flag:#0001
Squad: HiroKennellyᵍᵐ:black_flag:#0001, jengajojo​:black_flag:#5896, links#7868, senad.eth :black_flag:#8782, thinkDecade :black_flag:#7181, Trewkat#1933
Date created: Feb 15th, 2023
Date submitted: Feb 28th, 2023
Working Doc: Google Doc


This Forum post’s purpose is to check the community sentiment on swapping out the BanklessDAO multi-sig signers. We seek to introduce an improved, clearer selection procedure, and to detail the rights and responsibilities to the new cohort.

  • Multi-sig signers were elected in S1 and never changed. 5/7 multi-sig signers are currently inactive.
  • We recommend new multi-sig signers: (poll below)
    • must be a L2 contributor with at least 1 year contribution at bDAO.
    • must have held a leadership role in the DAO (i.e. coordinator, champion, GC).
    • must have experience with multi-sigs.
  • We recommend multi-sig signers be compensated in BANK (poll below).


  • In S1, BanklessDAO members proposed to transfer ownership of the DAO Treasury from the Genesis members to the DAO.
  • DAO members expressed interest, followed by an election submission for applicants and a DAO-wide election. The results were then confirmed via Snapshot.
  • The current cohort of DAO Treasury multi-sig signers are: - Icedcool, frogmonkee, Above Average Joe, RedVan, 0xLucas, Eagle, and Kouros.
  • One of the primary responsibilities of signers is to move proposals to Snapshot, where the community may ratify consensus reached on the DAO Forum.
  • These multi-sig signers have served the community in the past, but currently 5/7 members are not active bDAO community members.
  • Based on discussions here, as well as discussions in governance chats and calls, some DAO members believe it’s time to swap the current set of signers with active members.
  • We also seek to propose a new set of rights and responsibilities for DAO Treasury multi-sig signers.


The BanklessDAO multisig is a digital wallet that requires 4/7 signatures before a transaction can be executed. Multi-sig signers have been elected by our community and are responsible for moving proposals which meet Forum requirements to Snapshot.

This group helps to ensure that proposals adhere to DAO rules and are reflective of the needs and desires of our community members (e.g. when uncertainty about governance procedures arises).

The current set of signers includes only two active members, which has meant expectations about the provision of guidance have been unfairly placed on these two members. Therefore we seek to understand how the community feels about updating the current criteria and selecting a new multi-sig wallet cohort.

Multi-Sig Signers Mandate

Owners of a multisig wallet are responsible for several key tasks to ensure the security and proper functioning of the wallet. The responsibilities include:

  1. Ensure the perpetuity of the DAO, in alignment with the DAOs mission, vision and values.
  2. Participating in the signing process.
  3. Monitoring the wallet’s activity.
  4. Managing access and permissions.
  5. Keeping their software and hardware up to date.
  6. Representing the organization’s on-chain identity.
  7. Vetting proposals that go on chain to confirm compliance with governance policies.
  8. Vetting all transactions to make sure that they align with agreed decisions.

Multi-Sig Signers Expectations

Role Requirements for Multi-Sig Signers include:

  1. Must be a L2 Contributor.
  2. Must have been a multi-sig signer.
  3. Must have been an active member of bDAO for at least 1 year.
  4. Must have held a leadership position in the DAO (i.e. guild coordinator, project champion, grants committee).
  5. Must maintain current knowledge of governance procedures if elected.


How do you feel about the proposed role requirements?

  • I support the proposed role requirements proposal
  • I abstain
  • I will comment with my concerns

0 voters


Do you feel the multi-sig signers should receive BANK compensation for their work?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


How much BANK compensation do you think multi-sig signers should receive?
→ This is just a temp check. The final bDIP will use the data below to make a recommendation.

  • Compensation same as Grants Committee (4K BANK/wk + 250K seasonal Coordinape)
  • 2K BANK/wk + 150K seasonal Coordinape
  • 1K BANK/wk + 100K seasonal Coordinape
  • I don’t think multi-sig signers should be compensated
  • Other

0 voters


  • Proper oversight and completion of financial processes for our community.


In order to swap the signers and update the mandate, we expect the following operational flow:

Factor Forum Snapshot
Temp Check Awaiting vote Not required
bDIP-XX Not started Not started
Application Submission Not started Not required
Multi-Sig Signer Vote Not started Not started


  • HiroKennellyᵍᵐ🏴#0001 - Guild and project coordinator, BC Associate, contributor to various projects.
  • jengajojo🏴#5896 - Contributor in governance and project management.
  • links#7868 - L2 Contributor, PM Guild Coordinator, Bankless Card Champion, governance enthusiast.
  • senad.eth :black_flag:#8782 - L2 Contributor, Member of the Grants Committee, ex-DAOlationships Guild Coordinator and Project Champion of B Labs.
  • thinkDecade :black_flag:#7181 - L2 Contributor, GC member, project management.
  • Trewkat#1933 - L2 Contributor in Writers Guild and several other projects and teams.


How do you feel about changing the current set of multi-sig signers and updating their mandate?

  • I support this proposal
  • I support the direction but needs improvement (please comment)
  • I’m against changing the current set of signers (please comment)

0 voters


Hi @senad.eth, great job putting this proposal together. I have a few questions.

I believe that I may have asked this previously, however still lack clarity.

  1. Is this a temp check or a proposal?

I ask this because I see that the heading says it is a temp check, but in the possible responses to the first question includes:

*which (to me) the wording is extremely ambiguous.

I see that you have mentioned that it previously has been voted on to switch signers seasonally, however, the snapshot vote was superseded by the Constitution - which failed to capture information on replacing multisig signers.

The constitution captured one responsibility of the multis signers:
“If the passing proposal is a Grants Request, DAO treasury multi-signers will be prompted to initiate the transaction in accordance with the passed proposal request.”
Which is not being upheld at this time, as Grants committee distributes this funding

  1. Wouldn’t there need to be a bDIP that updates the constitution to include information that it failed to capture prior to changes being made?

  2. How can we propose changing something in the constitution that isn’t actually in the constitution?

Per the constitution, it is not the set responsibility of the multisig signers to take proposals to snapshot.
This is likely an area that was not captured by the constitution, however since it isn’t in the constitution…

  1. Should we work on changing who gets proposals to snapshot? (IMO if we had a Governance Department, this could fall under their mandate)

All of that leads me to my last question:

  1. What is the reason for wanting to switch the multisig signers?

I ask because although it would be ideal if the signers were part of the community, and I am in general alignment on future responsibilities and requirements of multisig signers, I am unsure that a change is needed.

With the context and knowledge that I have, (always a possibility that I am missing something) it appears as the current signers have effectively stewarded the DAOs Treasury for the past 17 months.
If the 1 maybe 2 transactions per season are getting signed, and they are effectively stewarding the DAOs Treasury, does it make more sense to focus our efforts on the processes that need to be changed?


Sprinkles if there is a word doc version of this can I get a word count please

@ernest_of_gaia I am sorry, I don’t follow… what would you like a word doc on?

Hey @Sprinklesforwinners, thanks for your questions. :slight_smile:

This Forum post’s purpose is to check the community sentiment on swapping out the BanklessDAO multi-sig signers. Proposing role requirements are part of the process! We’ll leverage the sentiment to propose a bDIP that’s supposed to capture what the community wants.

Furthermore, as far as I’m aware of, “a bDIP that updates the constitution to include information that it failed to capture prior to changes being made” is outside of the mandate of this workgroup. Our goal is to swap out the BanklessDAO multi-sig signers and introduce an improved, clearer selection procedure, and to detail the rights and responsibilities to the new cohort. I hope this helps!



Good work! Just a couple clarification questions.

Couple quick questions:

  1. Why are the (aside from frogmonkee, I remember that situation) multi sig signers not active?
  1. Does this refer the constitution?
  1. So this one is a bit silly, so forgive me ahead of time: but there are some guilds that don’t specify “guild coordinators. There are maybe 2 grants committee members who have been removed. There are also project champions of failed projects. So how binding is this particular scenario?
  1. I believe the governance procedures in their own right aren’t necessarily “in stone” so I’m not sure about this either.

  2. Would there be a periodic “changing of the guard”? Per season? Per annum? Etc…

As @Sprinklesforwinners said, it does seem a touch confusing because this has been referred to as a temp check AND a proposal.

If it is a proposal, I wouldn’t be for it just yet without a few more changes, and a few more bits of clarity.

As a temp check. I would be for the general idea. As you are definitely going in the right direction.


1 Like

Am I misreading this? To be a multi-sig signer, you have to have been a multi-sig signer?

If I’m reading and interpreting this correctly, a new multi-sig signer needs to bring previous multi-sig signing experience with them from outside of bDAO?

I believe mult-sig signers should be compensated for their work, just not to the extent of the options provided.


I think what that means is that you must have been a multi-sig signer for a guild or project. But yes, good point haha


Poll 1 - I support
Poll 2 - Yes
Poll 3 - Other
Poll 4 - Support direction but needs improvement (only because of my answer to #3)

I feel like compensation should be by signature they cast. If there’s signatures asked of them, no compensation. These signers are already expected to be active and around the DAO so they’re not really on retainer just to be a signer. I’m not too familiar with frequency but the multi-sig signers execute one every season or so, maybe slightly more frequently. The safe is a 4/7, so if each signature approving is worth say 10k BANK, each execution from the safe would cost 40k BANK in compensation.

Just random numbers really but I’d prefer some system like that instead.

Otherwise all onboard with this!

Just to note…this season, Guild/Dept funding is like…2 weeks late. So are these signers really getting the job done?

Also - how do you know how much diligence they are putting in the tx’s? Do we know if they are ACTUALLY stewarding the DAO treasury or just signing stuff the GC signs off on? If the latter is the case, it’s the GC who is stewarding the DAO treasury.

GC was in deliberation, which was the delay. We got the transaction last week and have it in process now.

Depends on the party proposing the transaction and the complexity of the transaction.
If a transaction is more complex (interactions with a smart contract), MUCH more examination by all parties.

If a disbursement, we rely on Parcel and etherscan to verify the receiving wallets.

Additionally because GC is a trusted party, we do less due diligence.

1 Like

I think the only additional requirement I would flag for this is a need for general technical skill of familiarity with smart contracts, etherscan etc.

The reason being, is that as a multisig holder, you may need to kick off and review the deployment of complex interactions and smart contracts, for example Arrakis LP, or different platform integrations.

We have that kind of talent now, but imagining a future where there is an entirely new cohort of multisig holders.


I think there are two components here:

  1. bdip - This would define the mandate, requirements and definitions around the multisig.
  2. The election - the process around this would be
    1. an intake post
    2. a summary post
    3. an election on snapshot

That is what you are thinking right?

1 Like

I do not have an answer

Hey homie!

that’s a good question I don’t know the answer to… one would have to ask them personally, though I believe it’s the time commitment. Most of our current signers are still very active in the web3-community and hold roles in other organizations within the ethereum ecosystem, while representing bankless values.

It refers to the governance policy as agreed upon by the DAO and I guess ratified in the handbook / constitution. I think you’re on the right path here.

Thanks for addressing this. The point here is to limit to applicants to a set of people, that have held leadership roles in the DAO. How they are called shouldn’t really matter as long as they were conceptually speaking “of same value” as let’s say a coordinator role.

Term limits have to be negotiated going forward! I guess that’s one of the projects for the future multi-sig signers crew.

1 Like

Hey @DoubleB - thank you for your comment!

The purpose of this point is to require applicants to have experience being part of a multi-sig. They then could state their previous multi-sig experience during the application process. We thought that’s fair and wondered if the DAO thinks so too! :slight_smile:



I really appreciate your help with explaining my questions. Thank you again.


This is relevant input for those opposing Multi-sig compensation


That would probably harken more to this

But the scene is definitively related. For sure.

1 Like

@Icedcool @AboveAverageJoe since you two are the active signers now, could you tell us a bit about the average weekly commitment this takes?

1 Like