Detailed Instructions

Begin by documenting the non-negotiable requirements for your governance system. This forms the baseline for all comparisons.

• Sub-step 1: Determine voting mechanism: Decide if you need token-weighted, delegation-based (like Compound), or multi-sig approval.
• Sub-step 2: Establish proposal lifecycle: Define the required timelock duration, voting delay, and voting period. For example, a 2-day timelock and 3-day voting period.
• Sub-step 3: Identify upgrade paths: Specify if the system needs to be upgradeable via a proxy pattern or if it will be immutable.
• Sub-step 4: List permissioned actions: Enumerate which functions (e.g., setFee, upgradeTo) will be gated by governance.

Tip: Involve key stakeholders in this step to align on security and operational needs from the start.

Detailed Instructions

Assess the out-of-the-box functionality of OpenZeppelin's Governor contracts (Governor, GovernorCompatibilityBravo, GovernorCountingSimple).

• Sub-step 1: Review compatible extensions: Check if OZ's TimelockController, GovernorVotes, and GovernorSettings fit your voting token and timing parameters.
• Sub-step 2: Analyze gas cost benchmarks: For a standard proposal, estimate costs. A simple vote on OZ Governor can cost a user ~80k gas, while execution may be ~150k gas plus timelock overhead.
• Sub-step 3: Identify gaps: Note any missing features, such as a specific quorum mechanism (e.g., dynamic quorum based on past participation) or a custom voting strategy not supported by GovernorCountingSimple.

solidityCopy
// Example: Checking compatibility with an ERC20Votes token
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/governance/Governor.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/governance/extensions/GovernorVotes.sol";

contract MyGovernor is Governor, GovernorVotes {
    constructor(IVotes _token)
        Governor("MyGovernor")
        GovernorVotes(_token)
    {}
}

Tip: The OpenZeppelin Wizard is an excellent tool for a rapid compatibility assessment.

Detailed Instructions

If requirements are not met, draft the high-level architecture for a custom governance contract.

• Sub-step 1: Specify custom modules: Design unique components, such as a multi-tiered council structure or a veto mechanism held by a dedicated SecurityCouncil address (e.g., 0x742d35Cc6634C0532925a3b844Bc9e90F1b6fBcD).
• Sub-step 2: Define state variables and storage layout: Plan how to store proposal data, voter power snapshots, and execution status efficiently to minimize gas.
• Sub-step 3: Outline core function logic: Sketch the flow for propose, castVote, queue, and execute, ensuring they handle reentrancy and access control.
• Sub-step 4: Plan for auditability: Structure the code with clear events (e.g., VoteCast, ProposalExecuted) and consider using a formal verification tool like Certora.

Tip: Use established patterns from audited protocols (like Uniswap or Compound) as reference points, but adapt them to your specific logic.

Detailed Instructions

Quantify the trade-offs between using a battle-tested standard and building a custom system.

• Sub-step 1: Estimate development and audit costs: A custom contract may require 3-6 months of engineering time and a $50k-$200k security audit, whereas integrating OZ Governor might take weeks with a lighter review.
• Sub-step 2: Evaluate maintenance burden: An OZ-based system benefits from community upgrades and fixes. A custom system requires your team to monitor for vulnerabilities and manage all upgrades.
• Sub-step 3: Assess flexibility vs. security: A custom contract offers perfect feature alignment but introduces novel attack surfaces. OZ Governor reduces risk but may limit functionality.
• Sub-step 4: Calculate long-term gas implications: Model the total cost of proposals and votes over years. A more complex custom contract could have higher execution gas, impacting user participation.

Tip: For most protocols, the security benefit of using OZ outweighs minor feature gaps. Reserve custom builds for truly unique governance models.

Detailed Instructions

Synthesize your analysis into a final recommendation and actionable implementation roadmap.

• Sub-step 1: Formalize the decision document: Create a Governance Architecture Decision Record (ADR) summarizing the chosen approach (OZ Governor v4.9+ or Custom), the rationale, and rejected alternatives.
• Sub-step 2: Create a deployment checklist: If choosing OZ, list steps: deploy TimelockController, deploy Governor with extensions, set roles, and transfer ownership of core protocol contracts to the timelock.
• Sub-step 3: Schedule security review: Engage auditors. For an OZ integration, a 2-week review focusing on configuration is typical. For custom, plan a multi-week, in-depth audit.
• Sub-step 4: Plan the governance bootstrap: Script the initial setup: minting and distributing governance tokens, delegating votes, and creating the first proposal to ratify the system parameters.

bashCopy
# Example deployment command for an OZ Governor
forge create src/MyGovernor.sol:MyGovernor \
  --constructor-args \
    "MyGovernor" \
    $TOKEN_ADDRESS \
    7200 \  # Voting delay in blocks
    50400 \ # Voting period in blocks
    0 \     # Proposal threshold
    "1000000000000000000" # Quorum numerator (e.g., 1 token)

Tip: Start with a simplified governance model on testnet, gather community feedback, and iterate before the mainnet launch.