Adversarial Circumstances
Last modified:
Adversarial Circumstances
This page outlines common governance attack scenarios and the safeguards typically used in CenturionDEX governance.
1) Opportunistic Vote Capture During Active Voting
Scenario: A participant accumulates voting power mid-vote to push through a proposal unexpectedly.
Mitigations:
- Vote weight is snapshot-based per proposal
- Delegation timing rules reduce last-minute voting-power injection
- Public vote windows make monitoring and response possible
2) Malicious Proposal With Sufficient Backing
Scenario: A coordinated group attempts to pass a proposal harmful to users or protocol treasury.
Mitigations:
- Proposal thresholds gate who can submit proposals
- Quorum requirements make low-participation attacks harder
- Public discussion period enables community review before execution
- Timelock delay gives users and integrators time to react
3) Flash-Loan-Style Governance Abuse
Scenario: Temporary capital is used to meet proposal or voting conditions.
Mitigations:
- Snapshot-based voting power rather than same-transaction balances
- Proposer eligibility checks tied to historical delegated balances
- Ongoing community monitoring of unusual voting behavior
4) Incentive Misalignment in Treasury Votes
Scenario: Voters approve short-term extraction that harms long-term protocol value.
Mitigations:
- Transparent onchain proposal payloads
- Open debate in governance forums before execution
- Timelock and social coordination as emergency response layers
Practical Risk Controls for Integrators
- Monitor proposal creation events continuously
- Parse and diff calldata for queued proposals
- Maintain alerting on timelock queue + execution windows
- Prepare contingency runbooks for critical contract dependencies
Notes
No governance system is attack-proof. The goal is to increase attack cost, reduce stealth, and preserve response time for users and integrators.