[ARFC] TokenLogic - 6 month Service Provider Proposal

[ARFC] TokenLogic - 6 month Service Provider Proposal

title: [ARFC] TokenLogic - 6 month Service Provider Proposal
author: @TokenLogic
created: 2023-09-07


Following a successful TEMP CHECK this publication seeks to onboard TokenLogic as a Service Provider to Aave DAO.


TokenLogic has been contributing to Aave for nearly 6 months and this publication formalises our continued contribution to the Aave ecosystem by onboarding the team as a recognised Service Provider.

This funding will be used to support the TokenLogic team to deliver the scope as outlined in the TEMP CHECK.

If the DAO elects to grant an overlapping scope of work to another service provider, TokenLogic will amend the GHO stream accordingly.

If other teams within the Aave ecosystem wish to make proposal on topics TokenLogic is working on, we will proactively work with the team to achieve the best outcome for Aave DAO.


The following assets in the Treasury are to be swapped to GHO via the Aave Swap contract.

The AIP will call the createStream() method of the IAaveEcosystemReserveController interface to create a 180-day stream for 350,000 units of GHO. The following address will be the recipient of the stream:

Address: 0x3e4A9f478C0c13A15137Fc81e9d8269F127b4B40

This will allow the TokenLogic to periodically claim a fraction of the budget for the duration of the stream.


TokenLogic receives no payment for the creation of this proposal. TokenLogic is a delegate within the Aave ecosystem.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


@TokenLogic is it possible to have a budget breakdown? Thanks


Hey @TokenLogic, as the AIP is starting soon, we would like to ask if everything is aligned internally for you to deliver what is outlined on the scope?

Based on the comment we made here it is confusing to see @Dydymoon and @TokenLogic operate almost in opposite directions. It is definitely natural for collaborators to have different opinions on how to approach strategies but the recent Treasury management proposals have been confusing to say the least.

For scenarios where contributors of TokenLogic have different views on how to approach a proposal, we would suggest to at least make it a unified proposal that outlines the different approaches proposed by each contributor. More teamwork makes everything more efficient and easy to understand.

We would like some clarity before placing our vote on the AIP please.


Gm ! As answered to your comment, I’m an Aave DAO contributor and community member since 2020 and I’ve published other proposals in the past so the fact that I’m contributing to service providers shouldn’t block me from posting my own posts too, especially if I worked on it alone.

Also, it’s worth mentioning that I was never an employee of TokenLogic, which is Matthew’s company (it seems the biggest confusion is coming from here).
I did help TL on some treasury management proposals, emission analysis & strategies over the past 5 months and yes, I was also surprised to see the reaction on this post going against data, and against the strategist also doing internal estimations btw.

Some reasons that led me to post with my account:

  • As you said, it’s ok to have different views sometimes & imo it makes sense to post my thoughts directly in this case, enabling more transparency.
  • I recently got kicked out of the Aave delegates group by TL without explanation.
  • Author(s) are not always mentioned on TL proposals, which doesn’t give credit for the work submitted.
  • Personal views of a contributor were expressed with the TokenLogic account, so people might think I approved some posts I was actually against, which can really create confusion.

Considering the above, I decided to stop contributing to TokenLogic starting today to prevent this from happening again & prioritize the ability to propose strategies/comment my thoughts freely.

Ofc I’ll still contribute to the Aave DAO as always since I joined the DeFi ecosystem, mostly on my expertise areas such as Treasury / POL management, bribes modelisation & SM upgrade strategy topics which I’ll keep publishing personally after Llama’s contract ends in a few days. I also still aim to participate to the Liquidity Committee (which I initially proposed in the SM Upgrade - Part 5 & implemented with TL) but as a DAO contributor with proven track record.

Hopefully this helps clarify the situation, otherwise I remain available if you have any additional questions !


@Dydymoon This is really helpful, thanks for clearing up the confusion as indeed when TokenLogic was posting - we at least assumed there is some sort of alignment internally when no specific contributor is mentioned.

Also just to be clear, we appreciate your contributions and do hope to continue seeing you active on the forums/proposals.


Thank you for this clarification @Dydymoon

I assumed that you had been contributing to TokenLogic up until now.

1 Like

We appreciate your perspective, and your feedback is valued at TokenLogic. Our team consists of strong, independent thinkers, and sometimes, diverse viewpoints emerge. However, we’re actively taking steps to enhance the alignment of our public communications.

Our paramount objective remains contributing to the success of AAVE, and we are committed to presenting our best ideas with a collaborative approach. We thank you for your insightful input as we continuously strive for improvement.

In response to the concerns raised, TokenLogic has decided to expand our team by hiring a DeFi Strategist. Additionally, we are expediting our plans to develop a frontend for the Safety Module (SM) and GHO bribe model, aiming to support various liquidity pools. Our aim is to provide a valuable tool for the GHO Liquidity Committee and the broader community, facilitating interaction and context-building around the operation of the SM.

To address specific points raised:

  • Publications from the TokenLogic account will now include all contributors who worked on the proposal in the format TokenLogic - .
  • Proposals will be structured to present multiple options wherever alternatives exist, enabling a more collaborative approach
  • Contributors participating in forum discussions, will detail a disclosure highlighting that their comments represent personal views.

Following a similar approach to ACI’s funding request, TokenLogic will utilize the funds to expand our team. The team is currently comprised of four individuals, @r3genFinance (CFO - @Elliott_r3gen) and a part time designer. We are actively seeking a developer and strategist to join our ranks. Over the past five months, we have invested significant time and financial resources to establish a presence within the Aave community. We hope that our longstanding commitment demonstrates our dedication to continuing our contributions to the Aave DAO.

Contributors: @MatthewGraham, @defijesus, @agentmak and @scottincrypto.


Gm ! Yes I did, from April to September so actually over the past 6 months.

I’ve contributed to the following TokenLogic proposals:

I’ve also contributed to the following TokenLogic comment:

Analysis of CRV acquisition: impacts on the treasury, (completed with emission power overview on my account)

Lmk if there are any questions.


My biggest concern with this proposal is how we can justify the size of compensation.

Prior to @Dydymoon leaving TL, we understood that TL had three contributors, under the current circumstance TL would have four contributors, in our opinion, $700k/year for four contributors is a concerning precedent to set.

Having a budget breakdown would be super helpful in this case.

We are very supportive of TL working on GHO Adoption and Safety Module Improvements, however, we believe adding Treasury Management to the scope would affect the quality of deliverables considering the burden of the other two scopes.


Given the hesitation some members have expressed about the ask, perhaps breaking down the ask between a fixed amount and performance based compensation could offer clarity and better align incentives.

1 Like

@TokenLogic what happened with this proposal?

Hi @ApuMallku,

Based upon our discussions with various stakeholders within the Aave community we decided to cancel the proposal. We intend to prepare a revised service provider ARFC proposal in the coming week.


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.