Multisig Discussion and call for members to the Guardian Multisig

Hey all,

We need to establish a strong multisig to further the DAO and execute DAO proposals which have been previously passed. We attempted to establish a large, 15 person multisig back in March 2022 (Snapshot), but KYC requirements were added after the vote resulting in a breakdown in the effort with many individuals unwilling to doxx to Pixelcraft. This was previously titled the “extended DTF or eDTF” but I propose we update nomenclature to the Guardian Multisig moving forward.

To move forward, we need to clearly define the expectations and duties of the multisig. Many potential signers are concerned about potential risk with vague expectations of the role and a harsh legal climate for many of our US-based community members.

This is a murky area which still needs legal clarifications. A community member provided me with this framework of best practices in the space which provides some definitions for VASPs or Virtual Asset Service Providers: The Financial Action Task Force defines a VASP as an entity (multisig in this case) that conducts one or more of the following for a beneficiary (the DAO):
-exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies;
-exchange between one or more forms of virtual assets;
-transfer of virtual assets;
-safekeeping and/or administration or virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets;
-participating in and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer and/or sale of a virtual asset;
If those are the definitions, it seems that we must lean into the VASP definition and conduct the multisig wallet accordingly. To accomplish this, I think we need to do the following: KYC recipients of DAO funds, not oversee any native exchange in which the participants can’t be KYC’d (so no GAX), only perform the functions outlined above. I am not a legal expert and am hoping for broad input from the community on how other DAO’s have approached this and what else should be excluded from expectations. We must set up this multisig in a way that protects our community members.

Action Items:

  1. Please help populate lists of expectations for this multisig. I can start with some here:
  • Serve as a custodial wallet for DAO funds
  • Execute DAO mandates regarding staking of assets (GHST as collateral on Aave)
  • Create pairs and stake LP tokens on external exchanges if mandated by the DAO
  • Manage smart contracts which automate pairs and staking to external exchanges
  • Manage smart contracts which execute DAO votes
  • Manage smart contracts which may utilize DAO funds for token management not involving an exchange (ex: Bonding curve turned off, underlying DAI sent to this multisig, smart contract set-up to buyback GHST at predetermined intervals)
  • Perform KYC for payouts to community members (feedback needed on best practices for securing that data)
  1. Please post here if you are interested and willing to be on the Guardian Multisig. Per our DAO standard operating procedures, we will need a new election for this multisig since many previously elected individuals removed themselves from consideration. Per the DAO SOP, this role would be a 6 month commitment at which point membership will be re-evaluated by the DAO.

Thanks all,


I think the DAO should use some treasury assets to get some legal advice on the risks to community members willing and approved by the DAO to perform these duties. I would not like to see anyone getting burnt by regulators / civil lawsuits / tax authorities for properly performing this important role for the Aavegotchi DAO.


I agree this would be a good use of our funds. The legal and fiscal aspects were the biggest concerns regarding KYC and it would be important to be well informed regarding the risks involved if any and take appropriate steps to protect the members of the multisig. I was one of the original members of the extended DTF and already doxxed to Pixelcraft for that purpose, I am still willing to perform this duty and would be happy to be of service.