A Compound community forum proposal published on Oct. 8 calls for custody of the Ecosystem Protection and Continuity Fund, or EPCF, and mainnet Chainlink Smart Value Recapture, or SVR, revenue to be moved from safes controlled by the Compound Foundation to a Community Multisig using a 5-of-9 signing model.
The proposal changes custody, not the existence of EPCF
The alternative was submitted by community member ugurmersin as a replacement for Proposal 613. It does not seek to shut down the EPCF. The change proposed is the custody structure.
According to the proposal, as of Oct. 8 the EPCF held 500,000 USDC and 4.5834 million USDC deposited in cUSDCv3. Mainnet Chainlink SVR revenue held 355.95 ETH. At present, those two pools are managed through a 2-of-3 Safe and a 2-of-4 Safe controlled by the Foundation. If adopted, both would be placed under the Community Multisig with a 5-of-9 threshold.
Proposal 613 was canceled on Oct. 7, the proposer said
The proposer said Proposal 613 was canceled by the Proposal Guardian on Oct. 7.
The original Proposal 613 would have shut down the EPCF and transferred the funds to the Governor Timelock. Some community representatives argued that doing so would weaken the EPCF’s ability to respond quickly. The replacement proposal keeps the EPCF’s existing purpose, size and 48-month duration, while preserving its emergency deployment function.
Single-organization control is a central concern in the post
ugurmersin argued that the current setup leaves EPCF assets and SVR revenue under the control of a single organization, the Foundation.
The proposal contrasts that arrangement with the Compound Treasury Escrow. It said the Compound Treasury Escrow is controlled by the Governor Timelock, and TMC withdrawals require approval from 4 of 6 signers. Those withdrawals are also subject to a cooldown period and Community Multisig-related constraints, according to the post.
The post also questions past fund flows tied to V2 reserves and COMP
The proposal raised questions about the Foundation’s earlier use of V2 reserve funds.
It said about 7.988 million USDC was transferred out of V2 Reserves and ultimately reached a Binance deposit address. It also said 100,000 COMP, followed by an additional 50,000 COMP, moved through related wallets to multiple trading platforms. As of Oct. 8, the wallet in question had sent a cumulative 213,800 COMP to trading platforms, received back 93,049 COMP, and still held 29,250 COMP.
On those flows, the proposer said the Foundation had previously stated that it had not traded. But because internal exchange activity does not appear directly on-chain, the proposer said on-chain data alone cannot show how much of that COMP, if any, was actually sold.
The proposer also said the Foundation has not publicly disclosed agreements with the trading counterparties involved, or records covering the purchase, transfer and disposition of COMP. He added that he had previously described the conduct as "misappropriation," a characterization the Foundation opposed.
A 9-organization multisig is presented as the alternative
The proposal recommends that a Community Multisig made up of nine organizations take custody of the assets, with at least five parties required to sign any transaction.
The proposer acknowledged that he had previously criticized the composition of the Community Multisig. Even so, he argued that requiring signatures from 5 of 9 organizations would provide stronger checks and balances than a 2-of-3 multisig under the control of a single organization.