That’s a very thoughtful question!
I will allow the core GMX contributors to comment here, but AFAIK that “attack vector,” so to speak, exists before & after implementing this type of structure.
It’s not hard for any especially motivated state actor to do this.
It is possible to see the same facts and come to different conclusions. Our view is that this reduces the attach surface instead of increasing it.
Shutting down Labs does not shut down GMX, Labs does not control GMX and contributors through Labs don’t control GMX and formalizing these relationships makes what is already true clear: the protocol is controlled by the community and under its direction. Ensuring that this roles are clear helps ensure GMX’s censorship resistance.
With regards to it being necessary for contributors to be doxxed to the Labs entity, in most cases that will not be required and it continues to be the desire of the developers engaged in the development of for synths to remain anonymous. Arrangements for such contributors would be structured accordingly.
What being a contractor of the Labs entity does do is ensure that their contributions are covered and protected by Labs and allow Labs to defend and protect them related to the role they play through Labs in supporting the development of code they are hired to prepare for the protocol.
Thanks for the thorough response. I particularly liked this point you made:
What being a contractor of the Labs entity does do is ensure that their contributions are covered and protected by Labs and allow Labs to defend and protect them related to the role they play through Labs in supporting the development of code they are hired to prepare for the protocol.
If the Alphabet Boys come after the GMX team anyway, might as well have the ability to lawyer the fuck up.
In light of the recent CFTC lawsuit against Ooki DAO, I think it’s necessary to create a legal wrapper for GMX in order to limit potential liabilities for token holders (esp those in the U.S.).
adding on to the conversation, our recommendation remains the same, that is to apply a Business Source License to code developed under GMX DAO, similar to the temporary license in the gmx-synthetics repo: gmx-synthetics/LICENSE at main · gmx-io/gmx-synthetics · GitHub
The labs entity will remain private even with the license, and our view is that “Uses listed and defined” should be left empty
our opinion is that GMX DAO should choose not authorize any usages of the code, anyone can use the code to deploy contracts on blockchains but the labs entity will assist GMX DAO in applying the license should it take issue with a particular deployment or usage
What are next steps here? Snapshot?
yup, should be creating one today
I’d like a little more information on the funding that will be provided and how that will be voted on. Is this going to be a supplemental income stream for the devs above and beyond their token allocation? Or are the grants for operations merely going to cover legal costs?
Protection of the devs and GMX IP is very important, but creating a juicy target for competitors to attempt to drain the protocol of funds via lawsuits is a risk here if the DAO can’t tightly control funding flow to this LLP is it not?
this sounds wonderful! cant wait to see what happens
Good information. And I agree with you.
@coinflipcanda - what are next steps here post-Snapshot?
For everyone else here’s the link to the now closed snapshot: GMX proposal: GMX Labs (snapshot.org)
@coinflipcanda and @Jonezee - btw interesting thread here on BSL: https://twitter.com/z0r0zzz/status/1608530366079565825
HackMD note referenced in the above thread: DAO Source License - HackMD
big yes from me. lets go team.
