Temp Check: Transfer DAO assets to a Multisig Wallet & Custodian?

DAO Discussion General
,
21

The positive option is affirmed by option #1

4 Likes
22

I do support option 1!!!

4 Likes
23

I support option 1 also. Happy to see some direction.

4 Likes
24

Yes, sorry. My bad. On-chain vote = token-weighted vote

5 Likes
25

I Support opt 1 for transparency and Trust … WE are the DAO

5 Likes
26

Option 1 is the way to forward.

4 Likes
27

I am also in favor of Option1

2 Likes
28

Option 1 please this is a great news :smiley:

3 Likes
29

option 1 feels like the best option

3 Likes
30

obviously option 1.:muscle::muscle::muscle:

3 Likes
31

First, thank you to the team for drafting such a thorough and thoughtfully structured proposal. It’s clear that this transition is being approached with the community’s long-term interest in mind.

After reviewing the details, I support Option #1 as a major step forward in decentralizing governance, increasing security, and protecting the long-term viability of Lenfi. That said, I’d like to highlight a few important risks and implementation considerations worth addressing before we proceed to a formal vote.

Key Risks & Considerations for Option #1

1. Interim Custodianship of Off-Chain Assets (X, GitHub, Domain)

  • These remain single-signer assets in the interim (with Neophyte as custodian).
  • Suggestion: Explore shared 2FA options, backup access via additional trusted parties, or a formal key recovery plan.
  • Legal risk: Clarify whether Neophyte is acting as an individual or through a legal vehicle, and if there will be a signed trust agreement or MOU.

2. Multisig Governance Framework

  • 3 of 5 would be an ideal multi-sign setup - how can we identify an additional keyholder?
  • How will signers be replaced if unavailable or inactive?
  • What’s the transaction approval process (e.g., documentation, timeframes)?
  • Suggestion: Publish a lightweight Signer Charter covering responsibilities, transparency expectations, and emergency protocols.

3. Keyholder Accountability

  • The proposal introduces respected community members, which is great. However:
    • Will there be a public statement of commitment?
    • What happens if one or more signers are unresponsive or compromise security?
  • Suggestion: Implement a quarterly signer review period, where the community can vote on continuing or rotating keyholders.

4. No Timeline for Final Decentralization

  • The proposal is excellent for the interim phase but lacks a specific roadmap for migrating to fully decentralized, smart contract-based treasury management (I realize this is difficult without developer resources).
  • Suggestion: Include a “Phase 2” outline with clear criteria (e.g., after 6 months or upon deployment of DAO modules) for asset migration beyond multisig.

5. Legal Risks Remain if Assets Are Not Fully Detached

  • Even with this transition, team members could be seen as de facto owners of assets unless proper legal detachment is executed (especially with MiCA or DAO LLC structures in mind).
  • Suggestion: If possible, begin exploring a Wyoming DAO LLC, Japanese DAO wrapper, or another DAO-recognized structure in parallel.

Why Option #1 Still Makes Sense

  • Reduces key-person risk and single-point-of-failure security concerns.
  • Brings governance and treasury decisions closer to the community.
  • Signals maturity and alignment with Cardano DeFi best practices.
  • Provides an orderly and reversible path—assets can revert if multisig governance fails to meet expectations.

Suggested Additions to the Final Proposal

  • Signer Charter (roles, duties, response SLAs, rotation mechanisms).
  • Trust MOU or Legal Framework for digital assets held by Neophyte.
  • Recovery Plan for GitHub, domain, X account (multi-person access or secure backup).
  • Roadmap for Phase 2: transition from multisig to decentralized treasury contract.

Thanks again to the team and community members who shaped this proposal. With a few added safeguards, this will be a significant milestone in Lenfi’s evolution.

Looking forward to further discussion and refinement.

4 Likes
32

Thanks for your response. I have a few questions regarding your remarks:

  1. What’s the reasoning behind assigning roles and duties, assuming the only duty is to keep the keys to a wallet that holds the treasury funds and sign transactions whenever the DAO decides to spend funds from it? Also, with whom will I/the trustees have to sign an SLA with?
  2. Same question: With whom will I have to sign a trust MOU? I and the Lenfi DAO are not token issuers, nor will I or the DAO operate as a centralized exchange, what exactly do you think is the issue and what is the difference between 1 person holding the keys and switching to more than 1 person holding the keys? I am not sure I understand the Trust MOU/MiCA compliance point.
  3. Transferring the DAO keys to community members does not mean the trustees become the new team - it’s been clearly stated. The trustees are not obliged to have any commitments. The proposal aims to give the community autonomy regarding budget spending/funding & etc.
  4. Regarding roadmap: Re-read the proposal
2 Likes
33

I am in support of option 1.

3 Likes
34

Definitely support optio one

3 Likes
35

This is an excellent proposal Neo, really appreciate you driving this. As detailed in the proposal, I S₳PIEN will be fully committed to carrying out all responsibilities surrounding the multi-sig should it pass the DAO vote.

3 Likes
36

I support option 1. Thanks Neo

1 Like
37

complelty agree with option number 1, But as CMS said, what happens if one or several of this keys are lost or unavailable. Its a way to cancel them or recover them with the other keys?? Maybe its just ignorance about how it works…

1 Like
38

Thank you for the detailed response - it’s appreciated, and I fully understand your aim to avoid overcomplicating what is essentially a practical and much-needed step toward community custody and autonomy.

I remain fully supportive of Option #1, and I understand that the trustees aren’t the new “team” nor bound to formal roles. That said, let me clarify the intent behind the points I raised. They are not requirements, but rather community trust-building measures and optional guidelines that many DAOs adopt to reduce confusion and risk in practice:

On Roles & Duties

You’re right — the main responsibility is signing transactions when the DAO approves spending. But even in that minimal scope, clarity is helpful.

  • The goal isn’t to impose legal obligations, but to set expectations for response time, transparency (e.g., signing delays, participation), and potential replacement if someone becomes unavailable.
  • For example, should the DAO expect signatures within 48h of a passed vote? If not, that’s fine — but setting that expectation helps avoid frustration or misaligned assumptions later.

Many DAOs publish a “Signer Expectations” doc (not an SLA) just to improve coordination. Think of it like an open-source contributor guide — not legally binding, but useful for community ops.

A Service Level Agreement in a DAO setting could be adapted as a public or internal commitment for:

  • How quickly a multisig signer will review and sign transactions.
  • Expected availability for governance actions.
  • Communication expectations (e.g., notify the community if unavailable for more than 3 days).

In this context, it’s less about legal enforcement and more about:

  • Establishing community expectations
  • Building trust in decentralized operations
  • Offering a predictable, transparent rhythm for decision execution

Example SLA for a Multisig Keyholder:

“I commit to reviewing and signing approved transactions within 48 hours unless otherwise communicated. If I anticipate being unavailable for more than 72 hours, I will notify the governance forum and/or Telegram/Discord moderators.”

On a Trust MOU or Legal Status

You’re right that this isn’t about token issuance or exchange activity — and I completely agree the proposal is clear that this does not make trustees a “team”.

But the concern about legal entanglement comes from this:

“Assets like X, the domain, GitHub, etc. are held personally by you (Neophyte) as custodian.”

Even if done informally, that still links you personally to critical off-chain infrastructure.

A lightweight MOU-style statement could simply say:

“These assets are held temporarily in trust for the Lenfi community and may be transferred based on community vote.”

That’s not about MiCA or legal compliance — it’s about minimizing personal liability and preventing the perception of asset ownership. Think of it as a shield, not a shackle.

Public Declarations of Commitment or Expectations

Rather than formal legal contracts, they serve as:

  • Transparency tools: Outlining what the community can expect from keyholders (e.g., response time, signing practices, availability).
  • Self-imposed standards: Communicated by the keyholders themselves — voluntarily, not enforced.
  • Signals of trustworthiness: Especially important when handing over multi-million-ADA treasury control.

These can be shared publicly in a forum post, README file, or multisig governance doc and might include things like:

  • “I will respond to signing requests within 48 hours unless unavailable.”
  • “If I plan to step down or become unavailable, I’ll give 7 days’ notice, if possible.”
  • “I agree to publicly disclose if I believe a transaction conflicts with Lenfi’s best interests.”
  • “I understand I am not a team member or legally responsible for operations — only acting as a signer for transactions approved by the DAO.”

No signatures needed — it’s a social contract, not a legal one.

Example of a MOU (including SLA) for a Multisig Keyholder:

Lenfi DAO – Keyholder Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Date: [Insert Date]
Keyholder Name: [Insert Name / Handle]
Role: Multisig Signer (2-of-4)

Purpose

This non-binding memorandum outlines my understanding of responsibilities as a multisig keyholder for the Lenfi DAO treasury and related digital assets.

Scope of Responsibility

As a keyholder, I acknowledge that:

  • I hold one of four keys to a 2-of-4 multisig wallet containing Lenfi DAO treasury assets.
  • I will only sign transactions that have been approved by the Lenfi DAO community through its governance process (e.g., Snapshot or on-chain vote).
  • I am not part of the core team, am not a project owner, and hold no operational control beyond wallet co-signing.

Commitments

While this MOU is not legally binding, I make the following commitments to the Lenfi community:

  1. Availability: I will make a good-faith effort to be available to review and co-sign transactions within 48 hours of community approval, unless I’ve communicated otherwise.
  2. Transparency: I will raise any concerns if I believe a proposed transaction violates the community’s will or poses undue risk.
  3. Security: I will protect my key and access credentials using best practices (e.g., hardware wallet, secure backups).
  4. Succession: If I can no longer fulfill my role, I will notify the community and support a smooth transition to a new keyholder.
  5. No Custody Claim: I acknowledge that I hold no ownership of the assets within the wallet and act purely as a signer on behalf of the DAO community.

Limitations

  • This MOU does not establish legal liability, a business partnership, or fiduciary responsibility.
  • I am not authorized to act unilaterally or issue binding decisions on behalf of Lenfi DAO.

Signed,
[Name or Alias]
[Wallet address or Discord/Twitter handle (optional)]
Date: [Insert Date]

On the Roadmap Point

You’re right — the roadmap is clearly outlined in the Implementation section. My suggestion was just to make the Phase 2 goal of transitioning to a decentralized smart contract treasury more visible as a milestone (e.g., 6–12 months out, based on tool readiness).

That helps ensure the community doesn’t treat multisig as the end-state but as a solid stepping stone.

The one other thing I’d like to follow up on is pursuing a 3/5 multisig, rather than 2/4. 3/5 has advantages in security, decentralization, and operational flexibility over a 2/4 setup. I’m happy to elaborate on these points, if needed, but I know the question is likely more around how to identify another keyholder.

Again — I’m not pushing for extra bureaucracy. The proposal is great as written, and I support it, but it could be augmented to include expectations for the keyholders to adopt public MOU’s, and adding a goal for a phase 2 of key governance. My feedback is purely about helping anticipate governance friction down the line and preserving your (and the DAO’s) future flexibility and safety.

Thanks again for moving this forward.

4 Likes
39

Definitely in support of option 1! let’s go!

2 Likes
40

This is a great step and after watching Sapien’s video, makes sense.

3 Likes