[Governance Proposal] Initiate COMBO Governance

Upon the inception of Furucombo, the team’s vision was to create an interface that would enable users/participants to interact & compose transactions amongst multiple protocols at once. Beginning initially with basic,primitive cubes (‘strategies’) such as: Supplying Liquidity to Dai pool for passive income or Swap using Uniswap.

As a natural evolutionary step towards scalability, the $COMBO governance token was launched in an effort to stimulate utilization rates across the protocol. Initially, this effort was a great success but over time it has dwindled as the market has slowed its momentum.

The value proposition is transaction composability - which is something that isn’t available anywhere else in the crypto-space (so far).

The addition of the ‘explore’ page was a step in this direction - providing users a quick, one-tap solution towards decent APYs.

The subsequent phase would be to implement LP/Liquidity Mining/Yield Farming opportunities. The last and potentially final step would be automated participation; meaning, if an APY of a particular combo drops below a threshold then the contract will automatically transfer the user’s funds to the next highest APY pool (this, of course, would be done if the user grants the contract permission to execute such a transaction).

However, before we can reach these milestones, COMBO-holders (the community) should be able to exercise the governing power of their token to enforce changes they feel necessary that would benefit the overarching Furucombo protocol.

How can this be done?

Through delegation interfaces such as Sybil and Tally as well as Snapshot (for off-chain voting), COMBO-holders can now not only submit proposals through the forum but also institute innovative features that would be advantageous for the whole.

By implementing the aforementioned tools/mechanisms, there would be three phases for a proposal:

  1. Proposal Deliberation: This would consist of an in-depth dialogue presented within the Furucombo forum. Varying on the attention given to a particular proposal in question, it could escalate to;

  2. Temperature Check: Here the community will engage in an off-chain vote to determine/gauge whether or not the proposal should be integrated. Voters use Snapshot to indicate their interest in escalating it to the next stage. Snapshot poll lengths should be set to 2 days.

Similar to Uniswap, if the Temperature check does not suggest a change from the status quo, the topic will be closed. If the Temperature Check does suggest a change, proceed to Stage 3: Consensus Check.

A majority vote of 100k COMBO yes-vote consensus wins.

  1. Consensus Check: Once a proposal has reached this stage, it will be included as a new topic within the Consensus Check category. Therein the community should proceed to provide feedback based on the passed Temperature Check post. A new Snapshot (off-chain) poll should be created covering the options/suggestions that have gained the most traction/attention. This new SnapShot poll will last no more than 5 days (poll duration: 5 days).

At the end of 5 days, whichever option has the majority of votes wins, and can be included in a governance proposal for Stage 4. A 20k COMBO yes-vote quorum is required for the Consensus Check to pass.

  1. On-chain Vote: The community will vote FOR or AGAINST a proposal either through Tally (per delegation) or through Furucombo’s voting portal.

The governance parameters could mirror those of Uniswap’s to begin with and could be modified through the suggested governance process.

Initial governance parameters are as follows:

  • 10% of COMBO total supply (delegated) to submit a governance proposal
  • 40% of COMBO supply required to vote ’yes’ to reach quorum
  • 7 day voting period
  • 2 day timelock delay on execution

After some time, Furucombo could integrate mechanisms similar to Compound’s Governor Alpha and Autonomous Proposals.


It’s great to see we finally start the governance discussion! (Thanks Guzman)

Here are some questions:

  1. Do we need 3 phases/4 staps? : in the proposal, “Proposal phases” is 3 phases / 4 steps (1+2, 3, 4), if we want to keep the early stage governance in a simple way, I think we can use the voting feature on this forum to do Temperature Check first, and then use Snapshot to do the “3. Consensus Check” so members don’t need to move to Snapshot to vote twice. In the future when our governance topic goes complicated we can add more steps to make the process more detailed.

  2. Does people need to hold COMBO to start a proposal on the forum?

  3. Speaking of “how many tokens to submit a gov proposal” and “to reach quorum”, currently the Furucombo core team members don’t have any token yet (until 2021/11/8, our first day of unlocking, will vesting for 4 years, ref here), so we need to figure out how can core team participate in the proposal (which token allocation we should use to vote, or the core team can’t vote until our token unlock?)


This is an exciting moment for the Furucombo protocol as well as the community at large!

Here’s some responses to your questions:

  1. I agree. To begin, we can simplify the voting process by holding the voting feature on the Forum to do the Temperature Check. One caveat this will spring up is: Anyone with a Furucombo Forum account can access the open poll and submit a vote, even if they’re not a COMBO holder. Although this is only a Temp. Check, the voting outcome could vary. But as you mention in the latter portion of #1, “in the future when our governance topic goes complicated we can add more steps to make the process more detailed.” This is definitely a feasible result.

  2. It is not necessary to hold COMBO in order to start a proposal on the forum. However, to participate in Snapshot voting or on-chain voting, participants must be COMBO holders.

  3. I think 1M of the 6M held for future hires could be allocated to a team multisig and delegated to voting. In the event that the delegated 1M need to be used, then a subsequent proposal could be submitted for transparency purposes. An alternative would be to allocate a % of treasury funds (mitigation fund) as a delegate if the former suggestion isn’t agreed upon.


Nice post @Guzman_MassAdoption thanks for your thoughts!

Just some ideas from me:

  • In following with the road map for the governance, i like the idea of using vcombo for the governance. That way users can lock their combo to partake in governance, and they can stake their tokens for longer to increase their stake (this would only be required for the snapshot voting). Proposal deliberation can occur without staking combo or vcombo.
  • It would be very interesting to have the vcombo in place to vote on the upcoming yield farming integrations as you suggested. That way the community can decide on proposals that are submitted from the different protocols and decide whether to integrate the protocol, and what the rewards should be.
  • To address the voting issues at the temperature check, im fairly certain we can implement some checkstops to ensure the only users voting are the ones that are combo holders (or have some vested interest in the protocol - not just bots or spammers). Some ideas would be that only combone role members in the discord can have access to the votes (role specific voting)
  • To address the core team not having tokens unlocked, an idea would be to distribute the locked tokens amount in vcombo to the core team members proportional to their locked combo, and that can be used for the governance. Once the tokens are unlocked as per the vesting schedule or claimed, then the original vcombo tokens would be burned.
  • About vCOMBO:
    Yes, we should definitely use vCOMBO to vote (in the future), we plan to work on vCOMBO contract in late Q3 and send it to an external audit, should be able to go live in early Q4.

  • About what to vote:
    I think letting the community decide which protocol to integrate is our long term goal (since the risk of integrating new protocol is extremely high, even for top-level protocols), for short term, I think to vote on which “pool” we should list and how much reward we should allocate to should be interesting. And I would love to know more about what else is possible to discuss and vote at this stage.

  • About core team voting power:
    To allocate (some) portion from Future Hire sounds good.

  • About % of total supply to reach quorum
    There are 2 things I want to mention:

  1. Until 2021/11 we might NOT have 40M COMBO out there (still doing the calculation, best guess is around 30M COMBO)
  2. Since we are planning to use vCOMBO as the voting power, and the longer you stake the more vCOMBO you get (this can prevent whales manipulate our governance), we might need to re-calculate how much is the quorum.
1 Like

Great post @Guzman_MassAdoption!

Have some thought over the quorum:

  • 10% of COMBO may be hard to meet, especially it’s around 50% of the current circulation.
  • Compound did several updates to lower down their quorum requirement, from 100K to 65K (0.65% of total supply) and now they are developing a whitelist to allow whitelisted addresses to create proposals without any COMP delegated. Saying that 0.65% is still too high for a mature governance.
  • Considering vCOMBO mechanism, maybe we can refer to Curve’s quorum setting. Currently, you need at least 2500 veCRV to be able to create a Curve DAO proposal.

Excellent responses all around. To Blazar’s point(s), I believe these are all viable and could be implemented in streamlined fashion - especially if the anticipated vCOMBO contract is aimed to deploy in late Q3.

In fact, as Blake mentioned in her reply, utilizing Curve’s quorum setting to serve as a baseline proposal threshold may be the most ideal approach.

  • Initiate Furucombo Governance
  • We don’t need Governance right now

0 voters

1 Like

Awesome to See Governance taking place.
I use Furucombo for all my Multiple Transactions.
Really convenient .
Can’t wait for this to Be A DAO and take part in Governance


Amazing. Good to see the progress so far


This will be an amazing feature.


Amazing stuff, very much in agreement