[TEMP CHECK] Financial Services Proposal - karpatkey & TokenLogic
Vote Result: YES
Rationale
Overall, the scope and problems solved are outlined extremely clearly and the KPIs for this proposal should be easy to track. The problems solved are extremely pertinent and both service providers have shown the capability to tackle them. We understand why the scope has been merged as such given the interlinkages between the GHO, SM, and treasury management parts of the proposal.
In terms of improvements:
- We recommend that @karpatkey_TokenLogic clearly outlines KPIs as part of an evolution of this proposal, which the DAO can then use to assess performance at the 180-day mark and after 1 year.
- There needs to be a much clearer demarcation of how the GHO Liquidity Committee will be folded into the Aave Liquidity Committee. At present, there is a lack of clarity on how the funds allocated to the GLC will be utilised, and the differences in strategy between both committees. A ‘long-term and adaptive strategy’ is vague and needs further fleshing out, otherwise GHO will run into the same de-peg and lack of utility and organic demand problems that has plagued it since its launch. Moreover, as @stableghost has suggested, funding for the GLC and all GHO efforts should be tied to incentives to make sure that GHO finally re-pegs and gains utility in the DeFi ecosystem.
- There are already disparate proposals, such as the one by ACI, to add other assets like stkGHO to the SM. This has been done without significant analysis and should be under the purview of the joint karpatkey-TokenLogic proposal. There is a real need to clearly separate scope and have a much more thorough analysis of how to diversify the SM including a very clear outlining of the risks per new asset added.
Therefore, we will tentatively vote YES in favour of this TEMP CHECK, but for the ARFC stage, it would be good to have the above concerns clarified and the proposal beefed up and potentially amended to account for these.