Governor governing another governor pattern

Support Contracts
1

I am trying to implement the following governance pattern but facing issues so wanted to check if this is supported

We have a GovernorA with TimelockX and GovernorB with TimelockY and would like to have GovernorA with TimelockX be the governance mechanism for the GovernorSettings of GovernorB.
Following the contracts, I can override the _executor() in GovernorB and set it to TimelockX. However when I execute a successful proposal via this route, I get a TimelockController: underlying transaction reverted error back from the TimelockX.execute call. Sample foundry trace below:

    ├─ [0] VM::warp(172802)
    │   └─ ← ()
    ├─ [47462] GovernorA::execute([0x5CF7F96627F3C9903763d128A1cc5D97556A6b99], [0], [0xea0217cf0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000127500], 0xb563a2869291343337aaeab3a57ff4c6e38fd571fc1cdd379e3d20a9b063f380)
    │   ├─ [513] TimelockX::isOperationDone(0x7b5fb92a16190479219625855830b94cec8d64039c80942659db74aaae3a939a) [staticcall]
    │   │   └─ ← false
    │   ├─ [562] TimelockX::isOperationPending(0x7b5fb92a16190479219625855830b94cec8d64039c80942659db74aaae3a939a) [staticcall]
    │   │   └─ ← true
    │   ├─ emit ProposalExecuted(proposalId: 42987237326974571082764542944064450636849269689767936086714136449699457781009)
    │   ├─ [15808] TimelockX::executeBatch([0x5CF7F96627F3C9903763d128A1cc5D97556A6b99], [0], [0xea0217cf0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000127500], 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, 0xb563a2869291343337aaeab3a57ff4c6e38fd571fc1cdd379e3d20a9b063f380)
    │   │   ├─ [5104] GovernorB::setVotingPeriod(1209600)
    │   │   │   └─ ← "Empty()"
    │   │   └─ ← "TimelockController: underlying transaction reverted"
    │   └─ ← "TimelockController: underlying transaction reverted"
    └─ ← "TimelockController: underlying transaction reverted"

In the above example I am trying to GovernorB::setVotingPeriod and I know for a fact this call is successful because if I read the return data of TimelockController._execute() target.call I get the event back for a successful new VotingPeriod set.

I suspect this scenario is not supported but wanted to double check with you. Thanks

2

I think it depends on your contract, so if possible, you can share your code at here.

3

It's just the default OZ Governor implementation e.g. both GovernorA and GovernorB have the following inheritance definition. Nothing else is custom.

contract GovernorB is
    Governor,
    GovernorSettings,
    GovernorCountingSimple,
    GovernorVotes,
    GovernorTimelockControl
{}
4

I think the TimelockX can control GovernorA and GovernorB at the same time, and, always write some test cases for the new changes.

5

Sorry I don't think you understood the initial question so I've demonstrated with an example, see commit here https://github.com/0xProject/protocol/pull/641/commits/13693b52c08bc164d6143f6c49d6bf8ddc927f95

to relate this code to the original example,
GovernorA with TimelockX = ZeroExProtocolGovernor with ZeroExTimelock instance for protocol
and GovernorB with TimelockY = ZeroExTreasuryGovernor with ZeroExTimelock instance for treasury.

You can see how the tests for updating the GovernanceSettings in ZeroExTreasuryGovernor fail.

6

It seems like you add a new variable protocolTimelock in ZeroExTreasuryGovernor.sol, so there are two timelock variables in your ZeroExTreasuryGovernor.sol contract, they are protocolTimelock and _timelock, I do not think it can work as well as you expect, in your description, GovernorA with TimelockX and GovernorB with TimelockY, I think you can call TimelockY. updateTimelock(TimelockX), so then TimelockX can control GovernorA and GovernorB at the same time.

7

Sorry but you are still not understanding even though I've pushed what you've suggested here https://github.com/0xProject/protocol/pull/641/commits/602fb8cb5139f4dabe00ce45a97f09d19675ea9d and still doesn't work.
Can maybe @Amxx or @frangio comment here?
Basically my question is, can the GovernanceSettings be updatable via a different governor than the one inheriting the settings? This is to enforce different voting period, duration and proposal thresholds than the one in the governor they are part of. :pray:

8

The reason that this is failing is that the "Settings" module uses the onlyGovernance modifier. This modifier doesn't just check that the sender is _executor, it also has a mechanism to make sure the transactions actually go through the Governor's own governance protocol. This mechanism is what's failing in your transaction trace.

I think your best option is to fork the GovernorSettings contract and use a modifier other than onlyGovernance.

1 Like