Owning rETH Contract Address on Ronin chain

Governance
1

Gm Rocket Pool community,

I would like for the DAO to decide on the best approach for the rETH contract address on Ronin. Before voting, please review the original forum discussion original forum discussion, please cast your votes below

TLDR

Ronin and Avalanche want to mint $3M worth of rETH on their chains to boost liquidity. To maintain control and avoid liquidity fragmentation, the proposal suggests that the DAO should create and own the rETH contract address on new chains, including Ronin and Avalanche. This would allow the DAO to decide which bridges can mint rETH and prevent fragmentation. Additionally, a bridge campaign is proposed to charge a small fee on rETH volumes, which would fund the DAO. The proposal also mentions exploring the use of xERC-20 smart contracts for rETH, but notes its potential difficulties and limitations. A community call campaign is suggested to discuss bridging strategies with different bridge providers.

Poll

  • Keep rETH immutable (no fees to the DAO)
  • Create a Bridge Security Council (Multisig, fees to the DAO)
0 voters
2

A few questions:

  1. My understanding is that this will be CCIP, correct?
  2. Why can’t there be a fee with an immutable contract? My understanding was that Chainlink would collect fees on our behalf and periodically send it to us anyhow.
  • I do believe there are drawbacks to immutable: (a) We’d have no direct enforcement mechanism by switching to a different bridge. We would still have social layer, and I suspect Chainlink’s brand integrity is worth more than the amount of fees we’ve talked about here. (b) We’d have no ability to modify things, eg, for a more flexible fee structure using a different bridge or something.
  1. Who is proposed to be on the Bridge Security Council?
  • You have previously suggested “2 members from Labs, 2 from IMC, 2 from GMC, and 2 from the DAO”: Discord
  • I’m not aware of anyone saying they’d be up for being a member yet
  • One GMC member opined about the need for legal protection: Discord
  • The core team was suggested as a potential owner, as they already have an entity and are generally trusted. Langers seemed hesitant, but didn’t totally close the door: Discord

Right now I’m leaning immutable, with fees if possible, but without if need be. This is primarily because I don’t think we have a clear owner.

2 Likes
3

@Valdorff Thank you for always participating in my forums and providing valuable insight. :saluting_face:

Hopefully my feedback below can provide better context,

  1. Yes this is using CCIP, Ronin’s canonical bridge
  2. Yes, the contract can be made immutable, with Chainlink collecting fees and distributing them quarterly to the DAO. However, this approach raises a concern in my opinion: the DAO must trust Chainlink to make payments and the DAO doesn’t have a way to make them accountable
  3. No one as of yet, if the DAO votes on wanting a Bridge Security Council (BSC), the next steps would be to find and vote on who would be on this council.
  • The 2 members from Labs, 2 from IMC, 2 from GMC, and 2 from the DAO is a suggestion. The DAO is free to choose an alternative solution that it feels more comfortable with. As you stated, “@langers seemed hesitant”. It would seem the Labs biggest concerns are regulatory risk and if they would not like to be involved in the Bridge Security Council that is up to the team and the DAO to decide if the BSC is the option the DAO chooses to go with.