Numbering scheme for OA actions


The Optimistic Approval (OA) mechanism, introduced in FIP-21, provides for two mechanisms through which the DAO can authorise the OA multisig to act on its behalf:

  1. Formal authorisation, where a proposal is raised in the forums / Discord, it is discussed, revised, and brought to a Snapshot vote. Upon passing the snapshot vote, the OA multisig key holders coordinate via the #optimistic-approval Discord channel to execute the change.

  2. Informal authorisation, where a proposal is raised in the forums / Discord, it is discussed, revised, and it is concluded that the OA multisig already has a mandate for executing the change. The OA multisig key holders then use Discord to coordinate and execute the change.

There are various examples already of both forms of authorisation being used to enact changes on-chain:

Formal authorisation: FIP-52: Increase DAI PCV allocation - #4 by cozeno, FIP-42 Deposit 2M FEI Into Visor Finance - #4 by elliot, Snapshot

Informal authorisation: FIP-XX Seeding FEI into Rari Fuse Pool 90 (Float Protocol), FIP-XX: Change TRIBE LTV in Rari Fuse Pool to 80%

Formal authorisations are numbered through the standard FIP- nomenclature, following their status as proposals in Discord.

Informal authorisations often don’t get numbered in the same way, mostly (I’m assuming) because they don’t go through to Snapshot. The Optimistic Approval Tracker Notion page numbers OA approvals, but the numbering scheme doesn’t appear to have

In this post, I’d like to propose two options, both designed to standardise the numbering of OA approval.

Benefits to standardisation

As Fei Labs, in cooperation with the DAO, begins to build more tooling around DAO transparency and engagement, standardising informal authorisations has several benefits:

  • Make data scraping and informational tools easier to automate, through eg collating historical authorisations
  • Allow both on-chain and semi-off-chain automation of OA vetoing
  • Provide a coherent branding around all governance decisions
  • Offer longer-term possibilities to organise governance decisions through a Dewey decimal- or HTTP status code-like numbering scheme

Option One: Homogenise

This option simply adds informal authorisation actions to the FIP- scheme, by instituting a community convention to number all proposals when authorised, independently of formal or informal status.

To aid discoverability and automation, the community might discuss a more formal template for proposal metadata to indicate whether a proposal is OA-eligible, and whether it is eligible under the formal or informal authorisation mechanism. (This second point is somewhat orthogonal, since it would have benefits to discoverability and automation independent of those discussed here.)

Option Two: FOA-

This option introduces a separate numbering scheme for informal authorisations. For example:

FOA-16: Seed Fuse Pool 90 (Float)

…which would refer to this informal authorisation.

If option two is appealing, it may also be worth considering separating all OA-eligible proposals into the FOA namespace, leaving the FIP namespace for only those proposals that require direct DAO approval on-chain.


This seems very useful for our processes. I’m a bit neutral but lean towards option one as that elevates OA actions to clear FIP status and raises the expectation around communication (as the DAO does have veto rights)