About stream cancellation
Considering the tremendous effort that has been and is being done to set Aave as an example of a decentralized DAO, but still optimal, for me it is simply unacceptable to have a situation like the aforementioned. We can’t have an entity engaged for treasury management and accounting reporting, and be in a scenario in which service providers (even Llama itself) can’t claim the vested payments on their engagements.
This is not a matter of having now a payload prepared to solve the problem, or even a matter of really negative consequences (as contributors hopefully will accept the situation): the issue is that having a pretty clear vision of outflows for like 1 year, nothing has been done until a service provider noticed the inability to claim.
I don’t even think budget is the main consideration here: the situation is simply ridiculous and not up to expected standards. Most probably, in non-decentralized entities, this would be equivalent to gross negligence and immediate closure of engagement.
So I think a vote on the matter for the community to express itself is acceptable.
High-level problem
Now, the points raised by @fig are actually the root of the problem here, even if I differ slightly on the view.
In my opinion, there should be way more separation of concerns in terms of entities contributing. At least clearly delimited by expertise, and not trying to touch development, risk, treasury, growth, marketing, etc.
To be clear, I don’t think this is a problem exclusive to Llama and its scope (even if it was, and I was really vocal about it back in the days). But I’m really aware due to my involvement providing services with BGD that the approach of having a lot of parties trying to tackle multiple “fields” (and budgeting them) is 1) not optimal operationally 2) creates huge darkness and lack of transparency to the community
-
If an entity does development → design and develop systems to Aave, and support non-technical entities
-
If an entity provides security procedures → support development and risk on security considerations.
-
If an entity does risk advising → analyze liquidity conditions and Aave pools and propose improvements to be applied (or implemented by development).
-
If an entity does treasury-related tasks → do proper tracking of finances, propose investment strategies, and be sure that the DAO is in a good treasury position.
-
If an entity does support external parties → support
…and so on.
I also think the DAO should be “optimistic” enough to not over bureaucratize itself. Just segmenting the fields of contributions will be definitely healthy.
For example, going back to treasury management, the needs to Aave are actually pretty simple:
-
“Accounting” reports
-
Keep funds available for due payments, pro-actively.
-
Invest in strategies not creating big overhead for the DAO, even if producing less yield.
Everything else is either 1) superfluous or 2) to be done ad-hoc.
This really deserves a clarification, because it is really misleading and factually incorrect.
First, BGD is/was not involved at all in “asking” for anything to potential contributors, including Llama. The relation BGD has with listings is that as part of our scope, we support any team seeking it on the technical parts, like writing the proposal payload or explaining how is the procedure of submitting a governance proposal. Over time, we have also supported contributors Llama and others on precisely these technical aspects, even when they were done on behalf of other teams because we are just neutral and try to help everybody.
Now, for full transparency, Shreyas (founder of Llama) asked me personally for feedback back in the days on the proposal for engagement with Aave, which I gladly gave as a community member.
Something I commented (basically more or less same as publicly HERE) is that as an option, the cost of supporting listings could not be bear by the Aave DAO (meaning not including it at all on the scope of Aave <> Llama), with Llama budgeting it to external teams contacting if really ad-hoc support. Again, as an option on a feedback request and in this forum; it is not up to me to decide what Llama proposes or not.
Obviously, I never suggested that BOTH the Aave DAO and third parties should cover services cost. And even more, once the listing cost was finally included in the Aave <> Llama budget, and knowing some extra cost was still being derived to third parties, I gave strong feedback to Llama to do something about it, as I believe it hurts the Aave DAO relation with partners.