Before deciding if this is a good or bad or neutral proposal I need to have some questions answered. So let’s start.
Revenue is defined as gross product revenue earned by Aave Labs, minus any direct revenue sharing paid by Aave Labs to external partners including revenue rebates, revenue subsidies, revenue sharing arrangements and any additional direct user incentives.
-
What are the numbers for all of the above? The DAO needs to understand what 100% exactly means. If we are talking for example about 10m, how much is flowing back to the DAO in the end?
-
Why should we force people out of v3 through adjusting parameters?
V3 is generating revenue, v4 does not. And it won’t be able to generate the revenue of v3 very likely for a couple years. Instead we should see both as separate products, whereas v3 is the money machine to keep things alive whereas v4 is the new protocol with other features, focused on other customers.
If v4 for example fails and we push users out of v3, the DAO is at risk of not being able to survive, which means every SP with it as well.
- Who is leading the foundation that would hold the Aave IP?
- Where does the justification come from for the funding? In total, including the growth/development grants this results in roughly 50m in total ask.
V4 in total asked 12m, for a completely new protocol, with new infrastructure and mechanisms.
So why for example does the Aave App cost 5m, which is about 42% of the whole budget for v4?
Taking all of the growth grants into account these features, built on top of Aave v4 (I guess) will cost more than Aave v4 itself.
And then I’m also confused regarding the frontend, I was told by an Labs employee that hosting the frontend would cost much more than 10m a year, which was the justification for keeping the cowswap fees. Now its “only” 5m which is better but raises the question if the 10m that were mentioned are simply way too much for managing and hosting the frontend.
- What are the exact KPIs for each named product?
- How many people are there working per team on each product?
- Shouldn’t each product be a separate proposal? Cause maybe I agree with 80% but not with the rest. I would then vote NO on this.
- How should the DAO evaluate Labs should receive X amount for launching product Y?
To better understand this, Labs should disclose cost on these products, as “Aave Labs has largely self-funded the cost of building and scaling the product layer”. - What will be the difference between Aave.com and pro.aave.com?
- Do you intend to pay back/transfer the Cowswap fees that you have collected so far to the DAO? Will the recipient address be changed to the Aave collector address?
I guess another comment will follow based on the answers.
In general first good step, but biggest problem for me is the bundle proposal and the funding.