Great points. So, thus far, the focus has been on developing the plan - questions about execution, including how to custody and release the funds, will be taken up only once the plan has been finalized. For now, I'll just say that there's a lot to think through here. Smart contracts sound great in theory, but they carry significant risks, and can actually scare off regulated entities. Putting the whole treasury into one wallet controlled by a single smart contract would be bad OPSEC, as, in that case, there'd be one single point of failure and, as we all know, smart contracts fail (i.e., get hacked/manipulated) pretty regularly. Just imagine billions of XDC suddenly in a hacker's possession! Now, to be clear, I'm not against the idea of stuffing the whole treasury into smart contracts; I'm just saying it's not nearly as easy as it sounds. But note, regardless of whether the treasury is ultimately controlled by multi-sig or by smart contracts, all fund movements will be visible on the blockchain for everyone to see. So you'll have perfect transparency no matter how the custody question is ultimately answered. That said, whatever happens at first, I do agree that the end goal should be automation wherever possible.
I respect the points that you bring, but who's to say that the funds will not get hacked where they are currently being held. The smart contract can be executed while maintaining the funds in a secured custody solution that offers insurance in case of hacks. Anything is hackable with the proper amount of effort and time, so the excuse of smart contracts are hackable does not solve the issue of one entity controlling the funds. How is it possible that other foundations (ETH for example) is able to keep their funds secured with so much more transactions and volume on their network? Because it is possible to achieve what I am suggesting. Let's see how this plays out but if we truly want the XDC Network to be decentralized, the way things are the moment is not decentralized and the DAO will be just a front of decentralization while the actual funds are controlled by a handful of people. All my comments come from a good place because I do want the XDC Network to be successful.
Great points. So, thus far, the focus has been on developing the plan - questions about execution, including how to custody and release the funds, will be taken up only once the plan has been finalized. For now, I'll just say that there's a lot to think through here. Smart contracts sound great in theory, but they carry significant risks, and can actually scare off regulated entities. Putting the whole treasury into one wallet controlled by a single smart contract would be bad OPSEC, as, in that case, there'd be one single point of failure and, as we all know, smart contracts fail (i.e., get hacked/manipulated) pretty regularly. Just imagine billions of XDC suddenly in a hacker's possession! Now, to be clear, I'm not against the idea of stuffing the whole treasury into smart contracts; I'm just saying it's not nearly as easy as it sounds. But note, regardless of whether the treasury is ultimately controlled by multi-sig or by smart contracts, all fund movements will be visible on the blockchain for everyone to see. So you'll have perfect transparency no matter how the custody question is ultimately answered. That said, whatever happens at first, I do agree that the end goal should be automation wherever possible.
I respect the points that you bring, but who's to say that the funds will not get hacked where they are currently being held. The smart contract can be executed while maintaining the funds in a secured custody solution that offers insurance in case of hacks. Anything is hackable with the proper amount of effort and time, so the excuse of smart contracts are hackable does not solve the issue of one entity controlling the funds. How is it possible that other foundations (ETH for example) is able to keep their funds secured with so much more transactions and volume on their network? Because it is possible to achieve what I am suggesting. Let's see how this plays out but if we truly want the XDC Network to be decentralized, the way things are the moment is not decentralized and the DAO will be just a front of decentralization while the actual funds are controlled by a handful of people. All my comments come from a good place because I do want the XDC Network to be successful.
Noted, and appreciated! We'll be looking into all this very closely.