Delegate Code of Conduct
Contributors: Blockworks Advisory, GFXLabs, 404 DAO,
Status: RFC
Date Proposed: TBD
Date Ratified: NA
Ratification Poll URL: NA
Components
We are opening a discussion for the creation of a Delegate Code of Conduct to spark mature governance procedures and discussion within the DAO. We are looking for feedback currently as there are still some adjustments to be made to the Multigov contracts on the Solana-side. Delegate Code of Conduct is important because it gives the DAO a chance to develop its own set of interests. While Wormhole has partnerships and ecosystem applications, these relationships only form a part of Wormhole DAO’s best interests. At no point should a DAO’s interests be wholly a result of the protocols it represents. There is necessarily a dichotomy between the DAO treasury and protocols it governs, as fees are extracted from these protocols.
Thus, the scope of this discussion is to establish rules for engagement alongside a code of conduct. The code of conduct may be enforced through DAO determined means. Below we provide a list of notable Code of Conduct policies in other DAOs to provide an idea of structure. For those unfamiliar, a code of conduct policy is a set of guidelines for the expected behavior of delegates. This is separate from the rules of engagement which determines forum etiquette, specifically in the context of disagreement. Code of Conduct policy is a set of ethical principles to apply more broadly to both forum behavior and voting behavior.
This proposal does not seek to create any punishments for violations in code of conduct or rules of engagement, as these types of violations are typically varied and individual, and thus there is no catch-all that can be employed.
Notable Code of Conduct Policies:
- Arbitrum Code of Conduct
- Arbitrum recently voted on multiple policy implementations for delegate behavior, and while this was purely a sentiment check, there will likely be a code of conduct implemented in the future.
- Code of Conduct Definitions:
- COI: Tokenholders or close-associates stand to directly benefit from a proposal outcome.
- Self-Voting: The practice of where tokenholders use their voting power to vote on proposals that involve or benefit themselves.
- Self-Enrichment: Increasing one’s personal wealth as a result of a vote.
- The proposal had three policies:
- Disclosure Policy: Delegates are expected to disclose COI relevant to proposals.
- Responsible Voting in Elections: Candidates are not allowed to only vote for themselves, and the weighting for their own self-vote should exceed the weights for other candidates.
- Strict Self-Voting Policy: Proposal authors abstain during the voting process, and delegates should vote in a neutral manner to not impact the results of a vote.
- Optimism Season 6 Codes
- Multi-level code of conduct with rules of engagement (forum etiquette, no discrimination, doxxing etc), Optimism expectations (self-dealing policies and value alignment), and a code of conduct enforced by a council.
- MakerDAO/Sky Delegate Rules
- MakerDAO’s delegate rules are simple and straightforward: no revenue sharing with delegators, enforced anonymity, and cannot be misaligned.
- Deprecated MakerDAO Code of Conduct
- Aave Code of Conduct
- Consists of a delegate pledge, where delegates pledge to a set of values. This delegate pledge was to be followed with a recognized delegate framework similar to Sky Protocol’s.
- Aave CoC Values:
- Good Faith and Best Interest
- Due Care and Attention
- Communication
- Professional Knowledge
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure
- Availability
- Security Optimization
- Ethereum Aligned
- Uniswap Code of Conduct
- Uniswap’s Code of Conduct was purely opt-in, and was never implemented in the end. Their code of conduct was different from rules of engagement on their forum.
- Uniswap CoC Values:
- Good Faith and Best Interest
- Due Care and Attention
- Civility and Professionalism
- Communication, Availability, and Responsiveness
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure
The following are hypothetical scenarios so as to prevent any identification, doxxing, or unwarranted attention to issues that have since been resolved in other DAOs.
Scenario 1: Delegate Conflict of Interest.
In this situation, a delegate stands to gain from a direct relationship to a proposal or an election, and does not disclose this relationship within the proposal or in any other public documentation. It is worth noting that not disclosing conflict of interest often happens due to negligence, not out of malice.
Noteworthy Cases:
Scenario 2: Self-Dealing and Unfair Advantages.
In this hypothetical scenario, a delegate with large amounts of power pushes forward a proposal that directly benefits them. Moreover, this proposal passes, and then said delegate comes to use their new leverage with said benefits in the proposal to receive greater offers from competitors. This delegate then completes the loop by taking the competitor offer.
This situation can be unfair for a multitude of reasons. First, propagating a proposal through the DAO with the intention of participation.
Proposed Wormhole Codes
Principle: Balanced Interest and COI
Delegates serve as stewards of the DAO’s collective goals, values, and long-term mission. While individual self-interest is a natural part of participation, delegates must ensure that their actions primarily advance the DAO’s well-being, rather than any single external protocol’s agenda or their own financial gain.
Guidelines:
- Primary Loyalty to the DAO: Delegates should consider the DAO as a distinct entity with its own mission. Their decision-making ought to be rooted in what will provide the best net benefit to the DAO’s treasury, governance mechanism, community health, or long-term sustainability.
- Personal Stake: Many delegates hold tokens, participate in other protocols, or have personal financial interests. A certain degree of self-interest is expected and not inherently unethical. However, self-interest need not fully dictate a delegate’s voting behavior.
- Open Disclosure: If a delegate’s personal interests are likely to influence a given decision, the delegate should disclose these interests to maintain transparency.
Where’s the Line between DAO Interests and Self-Interest?
- DAO-First Mindset: Delegates should ask themselves “If I were not personally involved, would I still believe this decision to be beneficial for the DAO as a whole?”
- Strict Disclosure: Delegates must disclose the nature and scope of any conflicts of interest (COI) in writing on the forum before voting. Disclosing a conflict of interest does not require delegates to change their voting behavior.
- Community Scrutiny: Assume all actions will be subject to public scrutiny. If a delegate’s reasoning would hold up under community criticism — meaning if the community would find the explanation of how the DAO benefits to be compelling — then the delegate is likely ethical.
Principle: Due Care and Attention
Delegates, serving as the primary decision makers of the DAO, need to perform professional, unbiased, and constructive reviews of each proposal prior to voting.
Guidelines:
- Delegates should read and review all of a proposal prior to voting, and it is encouraged that delegates provide their reasoning behind their decision as well.
- Delegates should abstain from voting when unable to conduct due diligence.
- Delegates are encouraged to create proposals to push forward the Wormhole Protocol.
Principle: Civility
Delegates should enforce civil discourse. The forum should be a safe, but critical area of discussion.
Guidelines:
- Harassment-Free Environment: Delegates should commit to making the DAO a harassment-free environment.
- Evidence-Based Feedback: Delegates should give strong feedback backed by opinions and evidence.
- Respect for Difference: Delegates should engage respectfully with diverse, well-reasoned viewpoints. Focus on ideas, not individuals.
- No Inappropriate Behavior: Delegates must refrain from inappropriate behavior, such as doxxing, online/offline harassment, etc.
Principle: Communication & Responsiveness
- Delegates should communicate and be transparent on the forum with their reasoning and voting at all times. This communication must be accessible to all DAO participants.
Guidelines:
- Timely Engagement: Delegates should respond to inquiries and requests for clarification.
- Documented Input: Delegates should maintain accessible records of their statements, vote explanations, and proposal feedback. Transparent record-keeping allows for better long-term decision making.
- Openness to Revision: Delegates should be willing to refine their communication style based on community feedback.
Principle: Integrity & Honesty
Delegates must uphold high standards of truthfulness, fairness, and moral consistency. Integrity and honesty ensure that decision-making processes are credible, and that community members can trust in the sincerity of a delegate’s words and actions.
Guidelines:
- Truthful Representation: Delegates must not knowingly present false or misleading information. When uncertain, they should communicate that uncertainty rather than speculate as fact.
- No Deception: Delegates should refrain from any form of deception aimed at swaying community opinion.
- Accurate Reporting: Delegates should make every effort to provide accurate updates, status reports, and clarifications related to their proposals, votes, and positions.
- Acknowledgement of Errors: If a delegate identifies a mistake in their reasoning, statements, or decisions, they should promptly acknowledge it, correct it, and learn from it, maintaining transparency and trust.
Principle: Protocol Security
Delegates must prioritize the safety and security of the protocol. Some decisions should be informed by considerations around risk mitigation, protection against exploits, and the long-term technical stability of the ecosystem.
Guidelines:
- Security Consideration: Delegates should evaluate proposals not just for immediate benefits, but also for their potential impact on smart contract integrity, user asset safety, and overall protocol resilience.
- Risk Assessment: Before endorsing or introducing complex changes, delegates should seek expert input or perform due diligence to understand potential vulnerabilities and ensure that safeguards are in place.
Applicability:
These principles and guidelines apply to all recognized delegates and any future roles with similar governance responsibilities (i.e., elected positions)