[ARFC] Cancel Llama Service Provider Stream

I would like to add my 2 cents:

In the past, I’ve been critical of Llama, their scope, and the questionable grants they received. There is some merit in the concerns raised by community members, and I believe that these issues have been extensively discussed. My feedback is that while Llama might not deserve the full final amount, they should receive a portion (25%-50%) of the final amount for the work they have performed or are planning to do. After all, some employees rely on their salaries from such work (although this point might be disagreed with).

My biggest concern is how @MarcZeller with ACI has handled this issue by openly calling to cancel the contract without first initiating a discussion or open forum on the matter. Such behaviour is unacceptable within the DAO and creates an unwelcome and hostile culture for current and future contributors. It appears to me that there might have been collusion behind the scenes with TokenLogic and ACI to ensure that TokenLogic gets paid.

I don’t question the work that ACI has done for the DAO, as it speaks for itself. However, I’m calling out the aggressive nature demonstrated by ACI when dealing with disagreements from other community members.

ACI is quickly becoming, if not already, the strongest force in the DAO, and the attitude being demonstrated raises concerns.

I’m not discrediting the work ACI has contributed, but I urge them to review their approach to addressing topics like this and strive for a more balanced and constructive approach when raising such issues.


This thread is literally the initiation of the discussion on the open forum

Thank you for your comments, @G-Blockchain. As your post indicates, our only request to the community is to be able to complete the work we have in progress, especially since there is just 8 weeks left in our contract and we do not plan to renew.

Post our contract, we encourage many other service providers and contributors to take on some of our previous scope. All our contracts, swap tooling, and Aave data warehouse are open source and we are happy to answer any questions to help onboard future contributors to Aave.

1 Like

Why AFRC first? No temp check? I just don’t feel the approach was appropriate and should have been discussed in a temp check first.

1 Like

First step (NOW): Initiation of the discussion on the open forum

(5 days at least before the second step)

Second step: Create the Snapshot (This can really work like a temp check)

Third step: AIP publication

I feel that temp checks are kind of redundant on topics that don’t require a lot of technical implementations so I agree with the decision of going directly to an ARFC. We can have our discussion here, then vote on Snapshot and see how it works out. From my POV you need a TEMP check if you need to spend a lot of time building something and you want to validate the idea before actually starting it to not waste your time.


AIP-145: Renew Aave Grants DAO

To elaborate on the above, Llama has helped AGD put up this renewal payload along with others. As a general comment, Llama has been responsive and supportive of requests when AGD has reached out.

On ending Llama’s stream early, I would echo @Hazbobo’s post and caution against increasing uncertainty for service providers - while there should be expectations of high quality work and engagement, there should be clear and agreed on processes to follow.


I agree on your point, however we can also make this a precedent that if the DAO does not agree on how you operate we can terminate the engagement. It’s not this case but I don’t want the DAO to be a slave on the future because of an engagement that they did some months ago because it could create uncertainty for service providers.

I am open to listen a counter proposal from the @Llamaxyz team. I am also sure that if the majority of the people here agree on some different options it will be also added on the Snapshot. Again this is a proposal on a DAO, the whole point is to hear all the sides of the story and vote on it. I don’t care if it’s ACI, the Aave Companies or BGD, the community will decide voting.

Appreciate the support, @0xbilll.

1 Like

Yes, like we said - we are open to a reduced rate for the next two months so that we can complete our outstanding work!


@MatthewGraham, can you please give some clarity/context on your relationship and communication with Llama leading up to this? I get business can be cut throat but this has a very nasty smell to it but perhaps it is just the communication around it rather than the actual actions. So if you could help explain the transition and comms from your Llama commitments to TL that would be helpful I think.

Disclaimer: this is my personal view and not that of my employer etc. etc.


I think what would make the most sense is the DAO producing a generalised framework for service contribution. This could outline cost bands the DAO is willing to spend for certain services, what disclaimers are required from service providers, what criteria they must meet and importantly - under what circumstances an agreement can be cancelled. I’m sure other things could be added too

Would be happy to work on something like this is anyone is keen


We definitely need to define a new framework for engagements.


It’s generally not a good idea to publicly drag out off-boarding someone. It’s bad for morale and people are not incentivized to work hard when they are dealing with a prolonged, uncertain firing.

That can make managing people and contractors difficult for DAOs, who generally want to build consensus on decisions through public discussion.


While not being the most educated on the subject both parties offer fair stances.(ACI offers geat points while Llama does aswell.)The thought of collusion imo is absurd(Tokenlogic/ACI); However if work has been done and is soon for ratification; I would not be apposed to vote for a reduced payout (reduced rate for Llama)for work to be released; Only if Tokenlogic and ACI sign off on work.(The steadfastness of tokenlogic/ACI wanting to do the work probono speakes volumes). The ACI framework to fix this could not come sooner. As inter DAO quarrels without vast full disclosure lead to speculation.

1 Like

As a community member, I believe that discussions such as these are not only healthy but also illustrate the vibrant, engaged community that Aave has cultivated.

In my opinion, this proposal should not be interpreted as discouraging or antagonistic towards service providers in general and should not deter any entity considering a partnership with the DAO. Rather, service providers should be aware that upon entering into a collaboration with the Aave DAO, their work will be consistently assessed, and the highest level of quality will be anticipated and upheld. Ultimately, the community will decide the appropriate course of action in this specific case, but introducing the option of terminating an existing engagement sets a significant precedent that should only serve to raise our standards even higher.

A quick note on communication: In the context of a DAO and a public written forum, effective communication can be quite challenging. I firmly believe in the importance of conveying messages in a clear and straightforward manner, as we see in this thread, provided they are respectful, deliberate, and professional – which, I am confident, is the case with all participants in this discussion.

Disclaimer: These opinions are my personal views and represent my perspective as an individual Aave community member.


As a community member and Aave holder, I think this proposal is healthy. We are talking about a significant amount of budget, and we need to be sure that everything is going well and that the work offered by this budget is fair.
Transparency and going directly to the issue are critical to growing this community and valuable to grow Aave. Because of that, I don’t think this proposal is aggressive or bad, in my opinion, we need to do more often and ensure that all the providers are doing their work correctly.


Would be up help creating a framework.

1 Like

Hi @John_TV_Locke,

Sure thing. Over the last 6 months, or so, Llama has transitioned its longer term strategy focus from Services towards Product development. This has been a gradual shift which led to the decision by Llama to not try renew the Aave contract. Naturally, those working on the Aave scope are affected by this, with the only exception being the frontend developer and solidity developer supporting the day to day Aave related work stream transitioning to the product team.

TokenLogic primary focus is as a service provider and can therefore be thought of as a spin off of the Llama service team. To this end, several of the current Llama contributors intend to transition across from Llama to TokenLogic at the end of the Llama <> Aave contract. Namely @Dydymoon and @scottincrypto. The relationship between Llama <> TokenLogic teams is strong and the members are as close as ever.

This is probably a good opportunity to clarify that the current topic being discussed has zero bearing on if TokenLogic is to become a service provider for Aave DAO or not. These are separate topics and should be viewed as such.

There came a point where my focus was increasingly towards TokenLogic and it made sense to transition to 100% TokenLogic. Given the allocation of solidity resources at Llama for the Aave scope, there is minimal capacity to take on new scopes of work between now and the end of the contract, I feel that I can not add a lot of value to Aave whilst remaining at Llama. With this in mind, I am leaving Llama, end of this month, to focus on building TokenLogic where I believe I can make more of an impact. It is also not right for me to continue drawing a salary from Llama when my focus is pivoting more and more towards TokenLogic. Now is the right time from me to transition to TokenLogic and focus on building/supporting this team.

I will be completing all my outstanding tasks at Llama and will continue to support any queries relating to initiatives that I was involved with. I have a great relationship with @HelloShreyas and I want Llama to be successful. Which ever way this discussion goes, I will remain impartial, abstain from voting and keep my focus on building and advancing GHO/Aave.

Our core values at TokenLogic include Openness and Trust and the above reflects this.


As a community member and stkAAVE holder, I think the sooner we rationalize spending, the better

Llama is an excellent DAO contributor, but as Marc pointed out, that’s all about sustainability and has nothing to do with politics

As @EzR3aL suggested, we might need to create a special framework for the future onboarding of service providers to make sure such concerns do not arise again


@Llamaxyz has done some fair work in the past. I understand the discussion is for the remaining time. The payment amount for the remaining 2 months (and initial engagement) do appear to be bloated for the services being provided. AAVE DAO should be concerned about this.

I am in agreement for a pricing negotitation/discount on services left for 8 weeks.

A point was mentioned earlier that DAO has allocated this budget and service contract, however, the same DAO can also cancel it before expiry. Thats the beauty of DAOs.

Moving forward a framework is essential to ensure the service provider, community, DAO and token holders are getting a fair agreement in place in terms of $ value as well as tasks (for bear and bull markets).

Finally, are there any other service providers that need to be reviewed in terms of pricing and contribution value?