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 the wallet to the Community Pool. At the time that Proposal 860 passed, there were around 90k unvested ATOM. By the time v15 took place, I think that number had dropped to around 73k, and all of that was returned to the Community Pool during the migration.
So the question for me is: Is it worth it to do another clawback migration to reclaim ~17k ATOM to the community pool, given that the individuals involved in this multisig are likely never going to coordinate with each other again coherently (given the details of how Notional fell apart)?
I don’t really think so. Gov can have a different opinion if it comes to a vote, but I don’t think 17k ATOM locked up in a multisig is worth the effort. It’s not like the Community Pool is low on funds.