# Canceller Multi-Sig wrt. Teragon Proposal
**URL:** https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762
**Category:** Uncategorized
**Created:** [July 15, 2024, 9:01pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762 "2024-07-15T21:01:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@TylerEther](https://forum.truefi.io/u/TylerEther)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2024, 9:01pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762/1 "2024-07-15T21:01:04Z")
The members of the canceller multi-sig remain firm on our stance of delaying the execution of the [Proposal for Tech Infusion, Support, and Expansion of TrueFi Products](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/truefi/proposal/15332378246254120039475099821609901036354010962115423311575021637120510957626).
We don’t seek to block this proposal indefinitely. Rather, we’ve noticed irregularities surrounding it and strive to enhance its due diligence and general proposal process. More specifically, there have been undisclosed conflicts of interest, irregular voting behavior, misalignment between long-term stakeholders, and a general lack of understanding of what is being proposed.
We don’t strictly oppose Teragon’s offer, and we recognize it’s not our duty to evaluate proposals themselves. We need to revamp the proposal process, and we invite Teragon to join us in this. Teragon will have an opportunity to make another proposal.
While we remain strong on our stance, we will not use our canceller powers to block this proposal simply because it is not executable—the proposal will fail because it was configured incorrectly. But we’d like to make it clear that we remain firm in our stance that the proposal process has been insufficient in protecting stakeholder interests.
* * *
Related readings:
- [Proposal for Tech Infusion, Support, and Expansion of TrueFi Products](https://forum.truefi.io/t/proposal-for-tech-infusion-support-and-expansion-of-truefi-products/1728)
- [MALICIOUS GOVERNANCE ATTACK: A Call to Action to Stop the Attack](https://forum.truefi.io/t/malicious-governance-attack-a-call-to-action-to-stop-the-attack-opine-in-the-next-42-hours/1746)
- [Refuting Governance Attack Allegations: Teragon’s Defence](https://forum.truefi.io/t/refuting-governance-attack-allegations-teragons-defense/1749)
---
### Author:  [@han](https://forum.truefi.io/u/han)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2024, 9:02pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762/2 "2024-07-15T21:02:37Z")
> [@TylerEther](#):
>
> the proposal will fail because it was configured incorrectly.
Could you describe how? Simulations work well.
---
### Author:  [@nezouse](https://forum.truefi.io/u/nezouse)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2024, 9:03pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762/3 "2024-07-15T21:03:32Z")
Maybe you should simulate again and use correct timestamp.
---
### Author:  [@TylerEther](https://forum.truefi.io/u/TylerEther)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2024, 9:06pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762/4 "2024-07-15T21:06:47Z")
> **[Tenderly Dashboard](https://dashboard.tenderly.co/shared/simulation/ea0638b8-960a-4a75-9a93-01a209817f7a)**
>
> Tenderly is a full-stack infrastructure that gives Web3 teams the only multichain node RPC with built-in development environments and debugging tools. Move fast from development to on-chain deployment across any EVM-compatible chain with a fully...
---
### Author:  [@han](https://forum.truefi.io/u/han)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2024, 9:09pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762/5 "2024-07-15T21:09:46Z")
Thank you so much. Yes, unfortunately we did not take the execution delay period in account.
---
### Author:  [@rafaelcosman](https://forum.truefi.io/u/rafaelcosman)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2024, 9:12pm UTC](https://forum.truefi.io/t/canceller-multi-sig-wrt-teragon-proposal/1762/6 "2024-07-15T21:12:40Z")
Thank you for the post @TylerEther. As one of the signers on the Canceller Multisig, I would like to make it clear to the community that I agree with what you’ve written here. Specifically, there appear to be significant irregularities around how this proposal was made, and usage of the canceller **would in my opinion be appropriate in this case**.
If you refer to the powers and responsibilities vested in the cancellers in the original proposal establishing the Canceller Multisig [TFIP-6]:
> [@\[TFIP-6\] Assign CANCELLER role for TrueFi Governance - \*\*modified\*\*](https://forum.truefi.io/t/tfip-6-assign-canceller-role-for-truefi-governance-modified/1430/1):
>
> What CANCELLER can do:
>
> - In case there is a proposal that is faulty or adversarial - canceller can execute a transaction that would render the proposal ineffective.
>
> What CANCELLER can’t do:
>
> - Canceller can NOT make any decisions or execute any transactions on behalf of the DAO. Its only power is to CANCEL proposals.
**Based on a review of the circumstances, this proposal appears to me to be both faulty and potentially adversarial, and so would be subject to cancellation.**
I would like it to be clear to the community that the decision to not cancel this proposal is due to the fact that it has no effect when executed (the transaction will be reverted) and so has no impact on the DAO. Therefore cancellation is unnecessary.