Aritect
Join

Risk Mitigation

Governance attack vectors and technical risk mitigation strategies.

Risk mitigation

Governance attack vectors

Large holder dominance:

  • veARITECT is earned through participation, not purchased — wealth does not equal voting power.
  • 60% threshold requires broad consensus, not just whale support.
  • Commit-reveal process prevents coordination attacks.
  • Regular monitoring of voting concentration.

Proposal spam:

  • Development team moderation filters low-quality submissions.
  • veARITECT bond (100-500) creates participation-based barrier to spam.
  • Bond burned on rejection — proposers risk earned governance power.
  • Monthly loss cap (20%) prevents proposer bankruptcy while maintaining accountability.
  • Community flagging system for inappropriate content.

Vote buying:

  • Token separation: veARITECT is completely independent from $ARITECT — buying or borrowing $ARITECT provides zero governance power.
  • Non-transferable: veARITECT cannot be sent, sold, or delegated to wrapper contracts.
  • Commit-reveal voting: Hidden votes prevent proving how you voted, making vote buying unverifiable.
  • Participation requirement: veARITECT requires genuine ecosystem engagement over time.

DeFi lending attacks:

  • Complete immunity: Borrowing $ARITECT through DeFi protocols provides zero veARITECT.
  • No conversion mechanism: There is no way to convert $ARITECT to veARITECT.
  • Participation-only earning: veARITECT is earned exclusively through ecosystem usage and governance participation.

Sybil attacks:

  • veARITECT requires genuine ecosystem participation, making fake accounts expensive to maintain.
  • Decay mechanism (-5%/month) means inactive accounts lose governance power.
  • Maintaining many active accounts is operationally costly.

Technical risks

Mitigation strategies:

  • Multi-signature treasury management.
  • Emergency pause mechanisms.
  • Regular professional security audits.
  • Gradual rollout with limited initial stakes.
  • Modular program architecture to distribute compute load.
  • Compressed data storage techniques.

Governance deadlock:

  • 60% threshold balances consensus with decisiveness.
  • Development team retains ability to implement critical security updates.
  • Alternative proposal submission if governance fails.