Tresaury centeralization risk

Hi there fam,
i was scrolling through the treasury wallets, i have noticed that they are all EOA accounts, which represent a single point of failure. So i believe that it’s best if the funds are held in a multisig instead, it would also help for users to inspect treasury activity for ease of transparency, and also allow more flexibility in terms of allowing a delay period of time for a transaction to take place, to reduce any possible risks.


Totally agree and hope this gets the attention it deserves. More transparency and extra security - win win imho!

1 Like

I am in favor of using multisig wallet for AprCoin DAO Treasury

A multisig wallet, in other words a multi-signature wallet, is required a predetermined number of signatures to validate transactions, which means that each transaction requires multiple ApeCoin Council members and/or Administrators to validate it.

For example in this case, ApeCoin Treasury multisign wallet, we can set rules such as at least X of signed by the members are required to transfer funds from the wallet. I recommend that we use the best known multi-signature wallet called Gnosis Safe:


  • Automatic transfer of funds received from NFT-sales to multisig wallet

  • Adding and displaying meta-information,
    for example, rationale of spending, to multisig Wallet transactions

  • Work with ERC20 asset like ApeCoin Token

  • Support smart contracts and other DAPPs

Pros: Using a multi-signature wallet is more secured solution for ApeCoin DAO fund management

Cons: Add little more management overhead

Here is additional context that may be helpful


Thank you for the elaboration!


This is a good point. Up