Arbitrum Security Council Election System - kodyvim's results

Arbitrum Security Council Election System Analysis Report

Architecture recommendations

Security Council Transparency: Enhance the transparency of the Security Council by implementing mechanisms for real-time reporting and disclosure of actions taken by the Council. This can include regular public reports on decisions made, discussions held, and the rationale behind them. Automated Compliance Checks: Consider leveraging blockchain-based identity verification or reputation systems to streamline and automate the compliance check process. This can enhance efficiency and reduce manual intervention while ensuring that candidates meet the required criteria.

Codebase quality analysis

Centralization risks

Collusion: There's a risk of collusion among a small group of participants to manipulate the election process. Implementing transparent voting mechanisms, conducting thorough compliance checks, and encouraging a diverse candidate pool can help prevent collusion. Opaque Decision-Making: If decisions made by the Security Council are not transparent or well-documented, it can lead to concerns about centralization. Implement mechanisms to publish detailed reports, meeting minutes, and rationale behind decisions to ensure transparency.

Mechanism Review

Nominee Selection (7 days):

Candidates declare their candidacy within the specified time frame. Compliance with eligibility criteria and endorsement threshold (0.2% of votable tokens) are required. Outgoing council members may become candidates if the endorsement threshold is not met. Nominee selection process is governed by the SecurityCouncilNomineeElectionGovernor contract. Delegates can endorse multiple candidates with custom weighted votes. Compliance Check by Foundation (14 days):

The Arbitrum Foundation conducts a compliance process to ensure candidates meet legal requirements and avoid conflicts of interest. Candidates failing compliance checks are excluded. Foundation can exclude nominees using the SecurityCouncilNomineeElectionGovernor contract. Compliance check duration is strictly defined. Member Election (21 days):

Voting stage opens once compliant nominees are determined. Weighted voting system with decaying voting power for late voters. Delegates can split votes among multiple candidates. SecurityCouncilMemberElectionGovernor contract handles member election. Update Stages:

Security Council manager updates its list of members based on election results. Time-locked withdrawal and timelock mechanisms are employed for security and user protection. Gnosis Safe modules are updated to reflect new Security Council members. Constitution Updates:

Amendments to the Constitution's text to accommodate compliance process, timelines, and installation time. Transparent reporting and adherence to Cayman Islands laws in the compliance process. Emphasis on fairness, transparency, and preventing centralization in Security Council.

Systemic Risks

Centralization: If a small group of entities or individuals consistently control the Security Council through repeated elections, it could lead to centralization and an oligopoly. This concentration of power might undermine the principles of decentralization and equal participation.

Contracts Upgradability: Although can be seen as a safety measure, it could also introduce risks and unforeseen vulnerabilities to the project.

Gaming the Compliance Process: If the compliance process is not robust or transparent, it could be exploited by candidates with malicious intent or by those who aim to manipulate the election results.

Low Participation and Apathy: If the community's participation in the election process is low, decisions made by the Security Council might not accurately reflect the interests of the broader DAO membership. Apathy could lead to a lack of legitimacy for the elected council members.

Technical Vulnerabilities and Exploits: Smart contracts are susceptible to vulnerabilities and attacks. A flaw in the election's smart contract code could be exploited to manipulate the results or compromise the election process.

Inadequate Timelocks and Withdrawal Mechanisms: If timelocks and withdrawal mechanisms are not properly designed or executed, users may be exposed to risks during the update process, such as inability to withdraw funds in a timely manner.

Lack of Transparent Reporting: Without transparent reporting on the election process, decisions, and outcomes, distrust could emerge among DAO participants, leading to dissatisfaction and potential challenges to the legitimacy of the elected council members.

Unintended Consequences of Governance Changes: Changes made to the Constitution or governance process could have unintended consequences that affect the overall DAO ecosystem, potentially leading to disruptions or conflicts.

External Regulatory and Legal Risks: Changes to governance processes, compliance procedures, or election outcomes might attract regulatory scrutiny or legal challenges, posing risks to the DAO's operations.

Approach taken

Read through the summary statement of project and arbitrum constitution. Skim through the repo provided and take note of relevant points. Perform a detailed examination of the Election and Nomination implementation. Proceed with quality assurance (QA) and report writing.

Time spent:

39 hours