Loomio
Thu 4 Apr 2019 11:57PM

Proposal: Decrease the mandatory delay for payments in the DApp

BS Bowen Sanders Public Seen by 154

For over a year now, as Security Guard, and with the constant oversight of Griff, we've watched how the activity and usage of the DApp works, and we have not suffered any hacks* or bad actors taking advantage of our system. Also, an argument can be made that we as Giveth use the DApp more than any other parties, in order to conduct our own payroll and reimbursements as needed.

I would like to propose that we figure out a way to limit the amount of time that we are forced to wait between a milestone being approved for disbursal and it paying out. Right now this delay is an additional 48 hours on top of however long it takes to get your milestone filled, reviewed, etc. I want to know if anyone else agrees with me that moving that to 24 hours is safe enough to try.

BS

Poll Created Thu 4 Apr 2019 11:59PM

Decrease the withdrawal delay to 24 hours Closed Sun 7 Apr 2019 11:01PM

Change the delay in the DApp delay from 48 hours to 24 hours

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Safe enough to try 87.5% 7 D KI GG DA L JE MR
Not safe enough to try 12.5% 1 JF
Undecided 0% 38 JA YM Q AS AB PL K BS AA A R C EAD V G J C J R GS

8 of 46 people have participated (17%)

JF

Josh Fairhead Sat 6 Apr 2019 8:37AM

Not safe enough to try

I'd actually abstain given the choice. It's probably safe but I don't know and am ok with 48hr in general so I'd hesitate on a potentially unnecessary reduction in time window that increases risk without an increase in upside potential. Seems asymmetric but I'm cool with it if there is an upside I'm unaware of.

L

Loie Sat 6 Apr 2019 8:03PM

Safe enough to try

There's great value in this towards our UX evolution, and I super appreciate you being future minded in this Bowen! At some point we need to provide an experience that is more simple and quick than the traditional banking method of getting paid. And that means beating their time delays! There's often + 3 days added to this timeline because delegations require that veto period, so as much as we can safely reduce this bridge security delay is great! I mean, crypto's supposed to be speedy right?

D

Dani Sun 7 Apr 2019 6:55PM

Safe enough to try

I don't know what criteria were used to initially establish the 48-72 hour wait period or if there were metrics set for re-evaluation of those criteria at a future date such as, now, so I can only speculate that it may have had to do with how often the Security Guard functions are performed. As a failsafe it sounds like it's worked marvelously and from the stats shared it sounds safe enough to try.

GG

Griff Green Sun 7 Apr 2019 9:43PM

Safe enough to try

It's a little scary but i assume the deadman switch will protect us

BS

Bowen Sanders Fri 5 Apr 2019 12:01AM

  • from above: There has only been one incident where a refund was able to be pushed through even though it shouldn't have. Griff and Kay know what happened here. This is one of the reasons I've been working so hard to improve the Bridge Monitor Dashboard, so things like this are much harder to achieve.
K

Kay Mon 8 Apr 2019 4:07PM

Damn this closed before I could vote! I wanted to abstain anyway and saw that option was left out =)