Suggestion: Introduce Transition Period for Min/Max Dissolve Delay Changes

SNS DAO SNS Framework
1

Hi all,

After reviewing Dan’s analysis of the BOOM mint exploit, I realized that the recent Critical Topic change, while valuable, may still leave an attack vector open.

:test_tube: Edge Case Scenario:

  • A DAO with a balanced structure approves a proposal to double its min/max dissolve delays to signal stronger long-term commitment.
  • Immediately after approval, a major holder (e.g., core team, key investor) maxes out their dissolve and submits a proposal to mint tokens for themselves.
  • This could work because the voting power of min dissolve delay neurons temporarily disappears, while the boosted max-dissolve neuron suddenly holds disproportionate power—possibly enough to pass the proposal instantly.
  • In this edge case, a player / core team, with a mere 22% VP could make that move. (assuming ~50% of VP was on min dissolve delay)

This creates a temporary power imbalance—a “window of opportunity” where a smaller group can act with outsized influence before the rest of the DAO can adjust.

:counterclockwise_arrows_button: Proposed Solution:

Implement a transition period before new dissolve delay values affect VP (Voting Power) calculations.

I’m not sure yet how this could be implemented. One idea is a gradual VP adjustment function, similar to:

  • The “periodic confirmation of following” process (between months 5–6)
  • With original VP and final VP associated to the old and new params.
  • Maybe set a hardcoded default 7-day transition period, think it’s enough time for most neuron holders to adapt safely.

I don’t think this is urgent, but would love to hear the community’s thoughts—and especially welcome input from @lara if available.

Thanks and have a great week.

9 Likes
2

I think this is an interesting idea.
It might still be tricky to have a good overview when things take which effect in cases where there are a lot of proposals that update the parameters (like in the Boom DAO case).
We also thought about just going over the parameters again and thinking about whether there should be other boundary conditions (like is it really every needed that the dissolve delay can be 80 years, or should this be capped at a lower value).

What I like about the suggestion is that it tries to eliminate situations where “whoever wins the race gets an advantage”.

2 Likes