PTIP-38: Increase Ethereum Operations Team Budget

Governance PT Improvement Proposals
1

PTIP-38: Increase Ethereum Operations Team Budget

Simple Summary

The Ethereum Operations Team needs to increase its budget due to cost of mainnet transactions.

Abstract

This PTIP will add a new stream to the current Ethereum Operations Team Sablier stream for 210k ScUSDC.

Motivation

Over the last eight days 2 ETH has been consumed by the Defender relayer. The relayer is:

  • Rewarding the prize pools
  • Running Pod batching
  • Claiming COMP for Compound Pools

The gas cost is about 1.75 ETH / week. At current Ethereum prices that’s about $5300 USD / week.

This number does not include LINK costs.

$5300 x 52 = $275600, so we’re going to ballpark the budget at $300,000.

Specification

Overview

This PTIP will:

  • cancel the old Sablier stream (stream id 100260)
  • create a new Sablier stream for 300k ScUSDC over one year

Technical Specification

Given we want to bundle this with PTIP-37, we’re going to add another stream with the difference.

purpose tx
approve sablier spend ScUSDC.approve(sablier, 209998224000)
create stream Sablier.createStream(0x5Be7BbaFc73eF2a0928A793169771663a5815D48, 209998224000, 0x391a437196c81eEa7BBbBd5ED4DF6b49De4F5c96, 1632873600, 1664409600)
  • Yes
  • No, and I’ll explain why

0 voters

2 Likes
2

I also want to disclose:

We are changing the required number of confirmations from 4/6 to 2/6.

This is because we need to act quickly, and because the Sablier funds are streamed the ops team isn’t actually handling that much money.

Worst case, two people take one month of streamed funds (25k ScUSDC). We believe that’s an acceptable risk in order to move quickly.

3

I am totally fine with increasing the budget, such is the unfortunate cost of operation.

I am however figuratively falling off my chair seeing the multi-sig confirmations required being reduced to 2? Quoting from the original post:

This has now been unilaterally changed to less than a majority. Taking into account that 3 out of 6 members are PoolTogether core team, that means we’re essentially back at the start with no decentralization? Note that I am not saying I don’t trust you, this just feels rather wrong.

EDIT: Okay, Brendan just acknowledged this just before I posted my reaction. I am still a bit taken back by this action.

4

We replied at the exact same time!

Just to re-iterate: the ops team needs to move quickly.

We do not actually control very much money; only worst case 25k. This is in contract to the Pool Grants committee that actively custodies 500k ScUSDC.

5

Taking into account that 3 out of 6 members are PoolTogether core team, that means we’re essentially back at the start with no decentralization? Note that I am not saying I don’t trust you, this just feels rather wrong.

I completely agree that the goal is to transition to full community control. The ops team, for now, is more a matter of:

  • Figuring out how we can do this optimally
  • Training community members to run it

It’s not going to be perfect out-of-the-gate, so we’ll have to achieve decentralization progressively.

It’s a huge black eye if prize pools stop awarding, so we need to be able to move quickly.