Add CGP 149: decrease constitution for GoldToken.increaseAllowance (#482

)

* Add CGP 149: decrease constitution for GoldToken.increaseAllowance

* Add forum link

* Add forum link in frontmatter

---------

Co-authored-by: 0xj4an (Work Account) <[email protected]>

CGPs/cgp-0149.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+cgp: 149
+title: 'Decrease `constitution` parameter for `GoldToken.increaseAllowance`'
+date-created: 2024-09-10
+author: 'Martin Chrzanowski (@m-chrzan)'
+status: DRAFT
+discussions-to: https://forum.celo.org/t/decrease-constitution-parameter-for-goldtoken-increaseallowance/9002
+governance-proposal-id:
+date-executed:
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+This proposal is to decrease the `constitution` parameter (the parameter that
+determines what percentage of YES votes are necessary for a Celo Governance
+proposal to pass) of `GoldToken.increaseAllowance` from 90% to 60%. This is in
+line with the `constitution` parameter of `GoldToken.approve`.
+
+### Status
+
+- DRAFT = Feedback collection
+
+### Proposal Description
+
+The Governance contract defines `constitution` parameters that dictate what
+percentage of votes need to be YES votes for a CGP to pass. In general more
+risky functions (that affect important protocol parameters or access to
+community funds) should have a higher threshold (think how in e.g. US Congress,
+some things require a simple 50% majority, others a 2/3rds "super majority").
+
+At mainnet launch, the cLabs team proposed `constitution` parameters for most
+core contract functions. For some reason `GoldToken.increaseAllowance` was
+missing in this initial configuration, so its difficulty is based on the default
+for the GoldToken contract - 90%. `GoldToken.approve` was set explicitly to 60%.
+
+As `increaseAllowance` is very similar in behavior to `approve` (if anything,
+it's less risky than `approve`), this proposal aims to set its `constitution`
+parameter to 60%, reducing from the current 90%. It appears that setting a
+similar parameter for `increaseAllowance` was simply missed by the dev team when
+proposing the initial Governance configuration.
+
+## Proposed Changes
+
+1. Set the constitution parameter.
+  - Destination: Governance
+  - Data: setConstitution(GoldTokenProxy, increaseAllowance.functionSelector, 60%)
+  - Value: 0
+
+## Verification
+
+Once the proposal is proposed on chain, fetch it with
+
+    celocli governance:show --proposalID <TBD> --node https://forno.celo.org
+
+Verify that:
+
+- The proposal has value 0 (no CELO should be transferred).
+- There is one transaction in the proposal.
+- The transaction destination is the Governance contract
+  (`0xD533Ca259b330c7A88f74E000a3FaEa2d63B7972`, verify against [Celo
+docs](https://docs.celo.org/contract-addresses)).
+- The transaction payload is a call to `setConstitution` with parameters:
+    - Address of the CELO token contract
+      (`0x471EcE3750Da237f93B8E339c536989b8978a438`, verify against [Celo
+docs](https://docs.celo.org/token-addresses)).
+    - The function selector for `increaseAllowance` (`0x39509351`)
+    - 60% written as a Fixidity value (`600000000000000000000000` or `6e23`).
+
+## Risks
+
+This proposal will make governance proposals with `GoldToken.increaseAllowance`
+easier to pass, but they will still be as difficult to pass as proposals with
+`GoldToken.approve`, which has a similar risk profile.
+
+## Useful Links
+
+* [Forum Post](https://forum.celo.org/t/decrease-constitution-parameter-for-goldtoken-increaseallowance/9002)

CGPs/cgp-0149/mainnet.json

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+[
+  {
+    "contract": "GovernanceProxy",
+    "address": "0xD533Ca259b330c7A88f74E000a3FaEa2d63B7972",
+    "function": "setConstitution",
+    "args": [
+      "0x471EcE3750Da237f93B8E339c536989b8978a438",
+      "0x39509351",
+      "600000000000000000000000"
+    ],
+    "value": "0"
+  }
+]