We want to drop our thoughts on the MSS issue including in relation to this post:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/mss-for-arbitrum-communication-thread-arbitrum-multisig-support-service/26508/28?u=arbitrum
We believe the multisig service operations will be absorbed into OpCo’s mandate and OpCo will eventually take over this service. The question facing the DAO is what to do in regards to managing the treasury for proposals passed by the DAO until the OpCo is ready to take on this role.
There are two outcomes:
- Continue with the MSS,
- Hand over the function to the Arbitrum Foundation.
In order for the DAO to continue with the MSS, a new funding proposal would be required to pay the signers until the OpCo is ready to take over. To help with this decision, the DAO should evaluate the overall cost of funding the MSS relative to the funds under their custody and the quantity of transactions signed per month. If MSS continues, we’d strongly recommend keeping the 9/12 setup and avoid reducing the number of signers. This is to help combat the increasing rise of digital and real-world threats that signers may face. Additionally, the DAO needs to decide whether a new set of elections should take place as the original proposal mentions that elections should occur every 12 months.
MSS is paid $234k per year and $19.5k per month. They are holding approximately 24,545,271 ARB and $3,290,031 across multiple multisigs as outlined in Entropy’s post. Note, the current payment is slightly less at $17k per month, as Alex L stood down as Chair and Frisson is no longer taking payment.
The Arbitrum Foundation is already involved in the MSS. We perform compliance (KYC/KYB) on the recipient and inform all signers when compliance is completed. We provide each signer with the name of the recipient alongside the wallet address for each project. It is then up to the MSS chair to coordinate the payment with the signers, communicate with the recipient, and keep the DAO abreast on updates in regards to the MSS.
We are happy to take on the additional role until the OpCo is ready to take it on. If we do take it on, our strong preference will be to set up our own multisigs and rely on our existing processes for handling the payments. This is to avoid any additional complexities that can lead to delays or other issues.
We see any change as temporary solutions until the OpCo is set up. We are willing to help to support that transition, but ultimately, it will be up to the DAO to decide on what to do.