Hello,
Some facts:
-
the ACI has voted YAE the Arb related proposal because it’s not even an option in our mind to slow down the DAO because we think risk has no place doing finance and/or growth job.
The other risk SP did what is expected, contact the relevant DAO service providers, coordinate and have the role assigned to a multisig with relevant parties. -
Chaos is selling licenses of their risk dashboard to protocol in the ecosystem; in our book, that’s widely different from directly providing risk service provider services.
-
Gauntlet factually benefited, regardless of our personal opinion, of every ACI service at every request.
-
Gauntlet is a 1B company that recently raised >23m$ there’s zero serious unicorn and zero company board in this world that would let the team quit their most prestigious client that spent >10M$ on them on the past years and contributed greatly on their brand if there’s not more profitable and strategic alternative.
“Marc has not been nice to us” is a poor excuse to justify Gauntlet looking into external business opportunities. “we left because we were treated unfairly” was likely deemed a better alternative than exposing itself to be seen as mercenary.
The ACI always and still supports a dual risk team DAO; having two risk teams allowed today to have no noticeable impact on the DAO protocol and contribute to our resilience.
Therefore, at the ACI, we are considering a very prestigious slot with a current budget of 1.6m/year just opened, and we’re looking forward to the candidates’ risk teams’ proposals.
Onwards.