SCP-TBD: Increase FOX Voting Power required to publish proposals on SnapShot to 10,000


This proposal aims to ratify the increase in the minimum amount of FOX voting power required to make a proposal from 100 FOX to 10,000 FOX. The purpose of this increase is to mitigate the risk of malicious or spammy proposals.


Historically, any ShapeShift user who held a minimum of 100 FOX could create a proposal on SnapShot. On April 12th, 2023, 4 spam proposals were created that did not follow the official FOX Governance Process and were subsequently removed. To prevent the ongoing “attack,” the threshold was proactively increased to 10,000 FOX and an announcement was sent in Discord as well as through ShapeShift’s Push Channel to notify community members.


By increasing the amount of FOX Voting power required to make a proposal, the community can make it more costly/difficult to publish malicious or spammy proposals to ShapeShift’s SnapShot space.


ShapeShift’s SnapShot Space was already updated to increase the minimum required FOX Voting Power to publish a proposal from 100 to 10,000 FOX. This was done proactively to protect against an ongoing “attack” of the same invalid proposal that had been posted and removed 4 times in the same day. If this proposal passes, the increase to 10,000 FOX will remain in place. If this proposal is rejected, the change would be reverted and the threshold will go back to 100 FOX.


By increasing the minimum amount of FOX required to make a proposal, we can ensure that only users with a significant stake in the ecosystem can make proposals and vote on them. This will help to maintain the quality of proposals and ensure that they align with the interests of the ShapeShift ecosystem as a whole. Additionally, it will reduce the likelihood of spam proposals and ensure that only serious proposals are submitted.

As soon as the threshold was increased to 10,000, the spam proposal that was being posted repeatedly ceased being posted, suggesting that the 10,000 threshold is sufficient for now.


  1. While this increases the cost of making a spam proposal, spam proposals will still be possible. The community can consider making an additional proposal in the future to require a minimum Gitcoin Passport score to add another layer of protection.
  2. This increases the barriers for smaller FOX holders to make proposals. However, many active community members do hold at least 10,000 FOX and could always delegate voting power to community members whose proposals pass Ideation but who have <10,000 voting power.


Yes, ratify the 10,000 FOX voting power minimum to make SnapShot proposals

No, reset the minimum FOX voting power to make SnapShot proposals to 100

I am in favor of this to help protect those who have subscribed to notifications on whereever as well. We saw a handful of affected individuals who got scammed by this due to not taking the time to read everything and research if the proposal had gone through full governance cycle.

Ill vote to up this to 10k or higher as needed.

I’m in favor as well.

thanks gk. are you suggesting adding language to pre-approve raising in the event this happens again at the 10,000 level? if so, i like this idea as long as we implement a cap, ie. 50 or 100,000.

Sorry, yes. i think we should add it in there, so that right now, its 10k. but if needed we jump it up, as needed/required.

In favor too.

But definitely with a set cap, I’d say 50k FOX should really be the maximum at current prices and only a temporary measure to fend off an attack.

If we believe Etherscan’s Holders’ tab, at 50k, that would be only about 250-300 addresses left with this power (approx. with few more on Gnosis and minus the vaults/treasury and in other strategies). So as long as 10k is enough to prevent “easy” spam it should remain there or even under if possible in my opinion.

If we want a welcoming and open process we should not gatekeep it this way, unless we want to potentially discourage newcomers from proposing ideas because they see they wouldn’t be able to go past the Incubation stage because they lack the funds to push the process to the next step, just by principle. I’m not really convinced by the delegation argument as it would require them to ask a larger holder which in turn will need to agree with the proposal (or not be able to vote against/for it themselves)… it seems cumbersome and unlikely to happen for a new community member.

These proposals didn’t go through the formal process, in and of itself, this was enough to remove them. If it’s a scam or blatant spam, we should rather rely on our Moderation WS which can enforce the Code of Conduct and remove the messages/proposals. If the spammers are persistent or can’t be blocked and the Moderation WS needs more resources/paid time to defend our Governance process it should be seen as the cost of an open governance system, not an occasion to restrict the process to a select few.

Stake your bitcoin assets on autopilot using timebrook investment it’s is an automated trading platform where you stake to earn weekly rio,google about timebrook investment or check out with my link