The EIP-4824 1 standard defines common interfaces for DAOs via daoURI, akin to tokenURI for NFTs. This proposal will extend ShapeShift DAO to EIP-4824 by deploying a new registration contract through a contract interaction with the EIP-4824 factory maintained by DAOstar.
This proposal does not involve any transfer of funds or changes to ShapeShift’s contracts. DAOstar, with the help of a recent grant from Optimism, will help generate a daoURI to help ShapeShift adopt EIP-4824.
Motivation
EIP-4824 defines global interfaces for consuming and reporting DAO data. The absence of such infrastructure has been holding back the DAO ecosystem - many new DAOs/ DAO frameworks have zero visibility on aggregators, most tooling providers have a hard time ensuring compatibility for different types of DAOs, there is no comprehensive, self-maintaining registry that stores DAO-information, etc. By defining a simple JSON schema, EIP-4824 provides a method for DAOs to self-publish information irrespective of their architecture or the chain they exist on.
Adopting the EIP-4824 standard will enrich the on-chain information availability of ShapeShift DAO’s governance contracts, making it easier for existing and future DAO tools to seamlessly interact with the contracts. A specific example is enabling members to interact with the ShapeShift governance contracts through different front-end interfaces, potentially across multiple chains. Some of the tools that are digesting or committed to digesting this enriched information include Snapshot, Tally, Etherscan, DeepDAO, and other members of DAOstar One.
Recent EIP-4824 Updates:
Snapshot X, Aragon V3, Moloch V3 and multiple other governance frameworks have integrated EIP-4824.
Optimism awarded DAOstar a $100k grant to help DAOs on Optimism adopt EIP-4824.
Note that adopting EIP-4824 does not require any parameter changes to ShapeShift’s existing DAO contracts, nor is there any cost besides gas to call the factory contract. The proposal does not in any way change the way that ShapeShift’s governance works.
Specification
If passed, the ShapeShift DAO will upgrade to EIP-4824 by calling the EIP-4824 registration contract located at 0x37df3fc47c1c3a2acafd2dad9c1c00090a8655bc, setting the DAO Treasury multi-sig as its admin and Joshua Tan (thelastjosh.eth) of DAOstar as its manager. No funds will be transferred.
The registration contract exposes a daoURI view function which returns the URI containing the EIP4824 compliant registration JSON document.
This executable proposal will execute the following calls to complete the contract upgrades:
Thanks for putting together a proposal for this, I didn’t know EIP-4824 existed to be honest!
Can you explain why the Manager role should be attributed to Joshua Tan (thelastjosh.eth) of DAOstar? I understand that the multi-sig would be in control anyways and could change the Manager if needed, but I’m trying to understand the benefits of giving this role to someone at DAOstar, in which context would it be used usually?
For the Push Protocol (notifications on Ethereum), our Operation Workstream has been given the power through governance to designate delegates to manage our notifications, wouldn’t a similar setup be better/more flexible (for the Manager role)?
Thanks for the comment, @Fireb0mb1. Most people are not aware of EIP-4824 but the situation is definitely improving. Now that frameworks like Aragon, Snapshot X, DAODAO, etc. have adopted the standard, more DAOs will automatically become EIP-4824 compliant going forward.
The suggestion to add someone from DAOstar as a manager is primarily to streamline the process of updating the daoURI. With the recent grant, we now have the capacity to collaborate with DAOs in building or adjusting their daoURIs. Having a manager in place alleviates the need to navigate the full governance process for every modification.
However, if a working group from Shapeshift is willing and able to assume this responsibility, that’s even better! We could then either replace Josh with the Operation Workstream multi-sig or even consider the option of two managers.
OK, it makes sense, thanks for the answer! I don’t personally see delegating this to someone at DAOstar as a major issue. Unless our Operations Workstream (@TylerShapeShift) wants a hand in being able to manage this entry without having to go through governance?
Another question/worry that was mentioned during our Governance call yesterday about your post was the current “Draft” status of the EIP. Do you know if/when it will become a Final EIP? I understand it’s not a Core proposal with a high impact on the network, but I guess it would be good to be sure we’re all working on the same standard before dipping in.
Some contributors also asked if you maybe wanted to explain briefly the EIP/your goals/potential risks during one of our community calls? Either a Governance Call (on Thursdays) or even a community Lunch/Dinner call (on Wednesdays). I thought I’d relay the info, if you are interested you can join our Discord and talk about it in General or even #incubation.
100% @Fireb0mb1 , no stress on someone from DAOstar being a manager, it is purely a matter of convenience.
We are speaking to the EIP editors right now so it should be getting out of the draft status soon. I don’t think much will change from between now and the final status in terms of the schema. The current version already has decent adoption from DAO frameworks including Snapshot and Aragon.
Happy to join any calls and speak about this proposal/address any questions. Could you also share the timings of those calls? I’m already in the ShapeShift discord as amanwithwings.
the event channel (near top) has the times (and if youhover over the time on the right, it shows your local time) server time is UTC. if you click on the one you think might work, you can add to your calendar (blue plus) or, set rsvp (in discord dm) for reminder etc.
Linner (lunch/dinner ) is 12pm MT, 2pm est. not sure what it is utc.
Gm @amanwithwings, thanks for the great proposal and for helping to bring some standardization to the wild world of DAOs. I’m in favor of ShapeShift adopting EIP-4824 and appointing a manager to update the DAO’s URI.
My only concern is the DAO manager role and the risk of malicious information being published there. While I don’t doubt Josh nor DAOstar’s intentions in the slightest, I would prefer to delegate the manager role to either the ops or marketing workstream like has been done in the past with the DAO’s Push channel (assuming they’re up for the responsibility which should be minimal). I imagine the community would still welcome any guidance from Josh and the DAOstar team though, and appreciate you all offering to assist.
Last note: if this goes up for official SnapShot vote, please include the transaction data in the proposal so the community can execute via oSnap.
@willy , thanks for the support and valuable feedback on the DAO manager role. Your caution highlights the community’s dedication to safeguarding the DAO’s integrity. Ideally, we want the DAO to independently manage its daoURI, so entrusting this to a ShapeShift workstream aligns with our vision.
Josh or I will present more details on the standard during the upcoming governance call. Let’s discuss and plan the SnapShot vote, as well as the details surrounding Shapeshift’s daoURI (which we’ll ensure is in place before execution via oSnap) during the call. Looking forward to speaking with all of you!
