Secret Swap Shouldn’t Send SEFI to anonymous proposals

Secret Swap was built to tackle the problem of private governance. While anonymity plays an important role in the voting process, we need to implement safeguards to prevent potential malicious actors from draining community funds. I don’t support funding proposals which involve sending funds to random individuals. The text may look pretty, but there is no accountability and we must understand what these consequences mean.

Vote Yes if you agree with this proposal.
Vote No if you disagree with this proposal.



I agree with this. We respect people’s privacy, but the dev pool does not have automated payments setup, and in addition these potential payments are private and raise legitimate regulatory compliance concerns.

1 Like

Isn’t this how governance is done on most chains ? At least this is how secret runs its gov. Even if you personally knew the proposer there is no way to enforce accountability programmatically - which is very different than a parameter change for instance. Curious how you would draw the line and the implication of drawing the lines on the effectiveness of decentralization.

The line is drawn when a proposal anonymously asks for SEFI from the community/dev pool. It is true that even if the proposer is known, there isn’t a real way to guarantee success. However, an individual likely can only fail once if he/she is known. Anonymous proposals can request millions of SEFI. Accountability can increase if reputation is on the line.

SEFI is a private token, making tracing more difficult to prove. Also SCRT governance is automated and this is not. We need to prove everything for our own regulatory compliance needs.

As for effectiveness of decentralization, anybody is free to pursue anything in this ecosystem. BUT, when asking for funding, a proper paper trail is not an out-of-line or unorthodox request.

People being anon is fine.

Are you saying you require KYC anyone who gets funded by the SEFI pool?

We’re trying to understand what the KYC process is (we’ve been ask to send utilities bill & jump on a zoom call ??), but it looks like indeed any funding from SEFI pool requires going through KYC - we’re fine with it but this could be better communicated in the gov page.
For clarification we’re a company not a random anon individual.

1 Like

You’re a company that chooses to stay anon instead of giving credibility to your proposal in a time when the community is literally craving devs info? That sounds just dodgy. If you doxxed your company your proposal would have passed with 80%+

I do agree with this.

Still, I’m gonna vote yes to this proposal because otherwise it would set a bad precedent.

We’re still waiting to hear back on the KYC process, we’re here to contribute tools nothing dodgy about staying anon publically - in fact this is the whole point of private voting and privacy in general. If people have to dox themselves on proposals to contribute to a privacy centric network this is another story.

Edit: I can understand the argument of private KYC to transfer fund, even though it is generally wierd with community pool - that means someone owns the funds not the chain -.

Private voting is for the security of the voters. I’m not familiar with situations in which the parties being voted on are anonymous. Also I will not accept personal or legal liability for sending the transaction if proper documentation isn’t given. If consensus is reached that this is considered defiance of the will of the DAO then feel free to vote me out. It was not made clear that you were a company until after I asked for documentation. I still haven’t been told so much as the name of your company.

1 Like