On the need of those 2 bullets @0xkeyrock.eth we think the strategic finance portion of the proposal is critical as the model we aim to build will be more robust than just a runway analysis, enabling deeper analysis. For example, we’d be able to model out how the addition a new service provider like Messari would affect the DAOs finances. Stakeholders could run their own bull/bear cases based on market conditions and growth assumptions to ultimately make the most informed decision.
As for the service provider transparency aspect, the point is that it’s done by a 3rd party. While we don’t question the integrity of any of Aave’s service providers, we feel there is value in having an outsider independently report on the work done.
On this point @Michigan_Blockchain
thinking on how professional service provision should interact with DAOs, and we typically lean towards more specific service provision services–like an entity that is solely involved in risk analysis or treasury management.
We could not agree more! That is why we feel Messari can come in as the specialist provider solely on financial services - including reporting, analytics (both protocol fundamental and governance related), and more advanced cash flow modeling.
As it pertains to the overlap with @llama we see 2 paths forward for how Aave could introduce Messari as a service provider
-
Build redundancy + expand capabilities
In a similar manner to how @omergoldberg viewed the Chaos/Gauntlet overlap -we believe multiple vendors are feature not a bug.
The DAO can benefit from multiple vendors conducting independent and collaborative research. Underlying differences in technology will result in analysis drift and varied results and recommendations. This will allow the community to compare results, conduct discussions, and ultimately make informed decisions
In this case the DAO would have multiple parties providing monthly/quarterly financial which ensures an accurate picture of the data is being presented. And to reiterate, the deliverables are not the same in how we present them as well as the ROI given the distribution. From this lens, if you think about what Aave’s “finance arm” looks like with the combined entities this option unlocks tremendous value by reaching a wider audience both crypto native and institutional while providing wholly new analyses that will enable better decision making.
Option #1 would add <$30k/month in spending or an increase in 1.8% of the DAOs budget, leaving Aave still cash flow positive by a wide margin.
-
Specialize services + keep spending flat
Currently a portion of this work proposed is being completed by @Llamaxyz who has done a great job executing on those deliverables. But that spreads one resource constrained entity into doing all of the aforementioned work plus growth, protocol upgrades, and treasury management.
Messari could relieve Llama of producing the ongoing reporting while acting as a more full-service provider in the realm of all things reporting and finance. The DAO can then reduce their payment by 20% and use that to pay Messari.
Option #2 would keep the overall service provider spend flat, greatly expand the reach of Aave’s reporting, and free up Llama to double down on their core competencies further enhancing the excellent work done on their other mandates.
We feel these are two highly attractive options that leave Aave better off and are looking forward to hearing the opinions of other stakeholders. @MarcZeller @eboado @PennBlockchain @fig @BlockchainAtColumbia