Clawback from prop #104

I would like to open a discussion to propose executing (or re-executing) the clawback of unvested ATOM allocated under Prop #104 to Notional, as already signaled by Prop #860 in order to return all remaining unvested funds to the Community Pool. Based on current on-chain data, over 40,000 ATOM should still be recovered. Background Prop #104 (March 2023) – “Fund Notional to work on the Cosmos Hub” Allocated 120,000 ATOM over 3 years (40k/year) through a continuous vesting account. The text explicitly stated that the community could claw back unvested funds if the grantee failed to deliver or lost community confidence. Prop #860 (Dec 2023) – “Claw back unvested funds from Proposal 104” (signaling) Passed as a signaling proposal asking to return all unvested ATOM from the #104 vesting account back to the Community Pool, following organizational changes (3 out of 5 multisig signers left, etc.). The vesting address was specified as: cosmos145hytrc49m0hn6fphp8d5h4xspwkawcuzmx498 Gaia v15 Upgrade (Feb 2024) – Prop #885 Official communication at the time mentioned that v15 included execution of the clawback handler for the unvested funds from Prop #104 (per #860 ’s…

Excerpt (1198 of 3781 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Can you clarify what these items mean?

3. Include the clawback in the next network upgrade or as a parameter change proposal, with a clear execution plan (block height, code path, and testnet verification).

Changing the balance of a wallet can’t be done via a parameter change proposal - I don’t understand what this means.

4. Add a generic clawback framework for future Community Pool grants to ensure such clawbacks can be easily triggered when milestones are unmet.

This seems way beyond the scope of what #860 intended to accomplish. It is a much larger and more discussion-heavy piece of work (R&D, community approval of the spec, dev work, testing a new feature, implementation) than executing a single clawback. I’d recommend striking this and putting it into its own proposal.

Though…the current ‘generic framework’ in my mind is to have a Community Pool prop fund a DAODAO contract with a supervisory council who can send the cash back to the pool if performance isn’t adequate. That’s what people usually do and so far it has worked fine. I don’t think it’s broken enough to incur dev work building out a bespoke solution.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, @lexa totally fair points.

On point #3 (“Include the clawback in the next network upgrade or as a parameter change…”)

I want to apologize if my earlier wording was not technically accurate, I’m not a technical, so I probably used the wrong terms.

The idea behind this point is actually very simple: to recover the unvested funds from Notional, since they did not fulfill their obligations under the community-funded mandate.

You’re absolutely right, a ParamChange by itself cannot modify account balances.

The intention was to outline a clear path for executing the clawback, depending on what’s technically supported by the Hub.

So yes, mentioning “parameter change” was misleading, it should be removed and replaced with a clearer, technically valid description.

And of course, everything would need to be tested publicly on a testnet before any on-chain execution.

On point #4

No need to go deeper into that one, it’s outside the scope of this proposal.

I just know that the window to claim these funds is closing, and if I remember correctly, it ends around March-April 2026. 40k atoms is a significant amount. My opinion is that it’s important to bring these funds back into the CP.

Understood, thanks for clarifying. Technically, it would need to be included in a software upgrade prop since this is a state migration (changing the balance of Notional’s account balance and/or the Community Pool balance). However - I did a bit more fact-finding here since my team would be responsible for implementing this clawback. Here’s what I think has happened: • Proposal 860 (2023-Dec-20) signalled community approval to reclaim unvested funds in the multisig. At the time of the proposal, this was just over 90k ATOM. • Further context is available on the forum here . It’s quite the read. • Proposal 885 (2024-Mar-15) upgraded Gaia to v15.0.0 and included the migration described in Proposal 860. • Relevant issue: https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/issues/2884 • Relevant file change here on lines 127 • This post suggests that v15 didn’t properly execute on what Proposal 860 dictated, since the multisig wallet still has 46,691 ATOM in it. Proposal 860 very clearly states that a clawback of vested funds (totally ~30k ATOM) is not within its scope. • v15’s clawback method involved an automated action to transfer the entirety of the unvested ATOM balance from…

Excerpt (1198 of 1954 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

If we decide that 17,000 ATOM aren’t worth doing anything with, well, personally, I’d definitely know what to do with them maybe a proposal to send them to my wallet? (Just kidding, of course!)

Like I said, gov can have a different opinion! This one’s just mine

It’s more like…I think it would be worthwhile to rally all the validators to vote if it meant keeping 17k ATOM away from bad actors. But is it worthwhile to send it back to the CP instead of leaving it essentially unreachable in a multisig with people who likely are (likely) never going to cooperate to free it? Probably not. Imo, that money is basically burned and I’m fine with that.

Unless we’re trying to afford something crazy expensive that takes the entire Community Pool and we’re short 17k ATOM, it seems like returning that money to the CP would just be a drop in the bucket in terms of the spending power of the community.

Okay, I hadn’t fully understood before, but if you can assure me that these funds will remain inaccessible, then I’m fine with that. The idea isn’t necessarily to recover them (even though that could have slightly increased purchasing power in the future); it’s mainly about involving the law and holding bad actors accountable. You understand me correctly. In that case, I agree with you.