Executive Summary
Recent discussions around AI DTF (vlRSR) Governance Flows have highlighted critical gaps in governance between Yield DTFs and Index DTFs. Rapid product iteration is valuable, but bypassing standard governance stages creates security vulnerabilities, potential legibility and accountability challenges, and governor confusion.
At the same time the last 3 days have seen a whopping 16(!!) malicious proposals deployed on more than 7 DTFs!
Spot the single legitimate proposal in the screenshot?
These sophisticated attackers also often bought minority governance token stakes to help their governance attacks succeed. Thankfully a watchful community and a guardian multisig will ensure none of these pass.
This RFC calls for two core governance upgrades across the Reserve ecosystem:
-
Mandatory Standard Governance Flows: Require all Index and AI DTFs to follow the standard DTF Governance Requirements that Yield DTFs have successfully utilized for years.
-
Optional: Transition to Permissioned Governance (Curated Proposers): Eliminate arbitrary addresses ability to on-chain proposal creation. Instead replace it with a curated, pre-screened proposer framework to protect stakers, governors, and users.
1. The Case for Standard Governance Flows Across All DTFs
Yield DTFs (such as ETH+ and eUSD) have operated under a clear, multi-stage governance pipeline: an off-chain Request for Comments (RFC) period, a formal Improvement Proposal (IP) thread, and finally an on-chain execution phase.
In contrast, recent proposals across newly launched Index and AI DTFs have frequently skipped RFC stages and been submitted directly on-chain from wallets that have not been disclosed as belonging to the core team anywhere. This introduces several risks:
-
Inability to Verify Intent: Without a prior Forum discussion, governors cannot verify whether an on-chain proposal is legitimate at a glance and they can not compare payload to intented change.
-
Increased Vulnerability to Attacks: Unannounced proposals from arbitrary wallets leave governors uncertain about the legitimacy of a vote, raising the threat surface for governance exploits.
-
Degraded Legibility: A healthy ecosystem requires that any participant or auditor can trace who proposed a change, why it was proposed, and what the expected outcome is.
Proposed Governance Standard Matrix
| Stage | Requirement | Objective |
|---|---|---|
| 1. RFC (Off-Chain) | Minimum 48–72 hours Discourse discussion | Gather community feedback, verify parameters, and refine proposal language. |
| 2. IP / Verified Proposer | Official posting with clear rationale & payload details | Ensure governors can compare the declared intent to the exact on-chain bytecode. |
| 3. On-Chain Voting / Optimistic Window | Standard voting delay and execution window | Give stakers and delegates sufficient time to inspect and veto if necessary. |
Index DTF and AI DTF deployers must adopt these established practices. Aligning all DTFs under a single, transparent standard strengthens governance security and makes participation far more accessible.
2. (Optional) Transitioning to Permissioned Governance
On-chain proposal creation itself should evolve. Allowing arbitrary addresses to submit proposals directly to governor contracts creates continuous security risks.
We propose moving toward a Curated Proposer Program (CPP) or permissioned proposal creation layer:
-
Permissioned Proposal Power: Only community-vetted individuals, entities, or core contributors (e.g., vetted ecosystem partners, recognized delegates) are granted the right to submit proposals on-chain.
-
Uncompromised Decision Power: Token holders, stakers, and delegates retain 100% of their voting, veto, and decision-making power.
3. The Evolving Regulatory Landscape & Consumer Protection
Historically, protocols hesitated to restrict proposal creation due to strict interpretations of the Howey Test, fearing that gating proposal creation might be viewed as “de-facto management” or active administrative control.
However, the regulatory environment has undergone a fundamental shift. In the post-Gensler paradigm, policy focus has pivoted toward consumer protection, investor safety, system resilience, and operational transparency.
In this environment:
-
Unrestricted proposal making permissions represent an operational liability rather than a decentralization benefit.
-
Implementing permissioned proposal creation directly serves investor protection by eliminating malicious proposal spam, payload spoofing, and governance attack vectors.
-
Clear rules, vetted proposers, and auditable pipelines provide superior protection for end-users while preserving decentralized oversight.
4. Anode’s Role and Next Steps
As governance facilitators for Reserve, Anode (anode.gg) is prepared to lead and support this transition:
-
Facilitating Standard Workflows: Assisting all DTF deployers in integrating the standard RFC-to-IP posting flow.
-
Designing the Permissioned Proposer Framework: Drafting the screening criteria, onboarding flows, and revocation mechanisms for Curated Proposers.
-
Ecosystem Coordination: Hosting open discussions on upcoming GovOps calls to refine these standards alongside delegates, stakers, and core contributors.
We welcome community feedback, delegate perspectives, and input from DTF deployers on implementing these updates.