Proposal 46 - fix proposals state and update docs

Why we need it

  1. After proposal 41 (changing quorum threshold) old proposals state started showing incorrect on website. I think that it is website problem but no - it happened bcs old devs implemented governance proposalState function incorrect and it checks quorum before checking proposal execution status
  2. Docs have not updated after proposal 41 and 44 and users see deprecated info about relayer registration threshold and actual ipfs hashes

What i did

I changed state function and updated docs ipfs. Also i implemented very very comprehensive governance tests with auditor - these tests should be added in future to each proposal to be sure that proposal does not break governance

New docs:

Proposal info
Update state function in governance contract and change ipfs contenthashes on docs.tornadocash.eth and docs.sources.tornadocash.eth

Proposal code:
New state function code:
Proposal tests:
Governance comprehesive tests:
Proposal contract:
Updated governance contract:

For transparency i as in last proposal placed ipfs hashes and conversion hash library right in proposal code and anyone can verify it just need to copy from contract code
Who want to test the site you can use cid which placed raw in proposal code

1 Like

who interested about airdrop proposal - i will propose two airdrops proposals in the middle of february
if first proposal will accepted second will be automatically rejected
if second accepted, first rejected

1 Like

Thanks for your hard work. Proposal 46 is necessary.
As for Airdrop I think it’s also right during this period.
Since the $TORN price has almost no more buyers and only increases by market.
We don’t need TornadoCash ads but we need more DAO and Staking participants to increase the TORN value.

What is the meaning of airdrop? If airdrops are added, the value of existing TORN will fall to the point of no return. I still recommend adding a burning mechanism. Of the tokens deducted from the relayer, 80% will be used for burning and 20% will be used for distribution. At the same time, attempts are made to charge mixers for their deposits, and the fees are distributed to pledgers. This is the way to go in the long run.

I think this is wrong. You’re putting in front of the fact that there will be an airdrop. Must first decide by voting whether the airdrop is needed by the community and whether the community is ready to take all the risks?

Yes, airdrops are pointless. I think it’s okay and should be considered from the perspective of how to operate in compliance with regulations, how to charge fees and how to empower tokens.