So first of all, Aave DAO exploring ways to get into RWA is probably the most important thing since GHO to generate significantly more revenue.
RWA, especially tokenized, have found their way to the blockchain and its only natural having them on the biggest lending protocol, dominating that vertical in every metric.
Having a separate instance for RWA makes sense to bridge the gap between on-chain degen and accredited investor.
So while in general I see a huge benefit, this proposal has a lot that confuses me and I hope @AaveLabs can clarify these points. Because reading the previous comments, there might be a lot people waiting for it.
Lets start with Profit Share Mechanism
I think its way too aggressive reduced overtime and does not even follow the guidelines here
WLFI for example is following this framework, which the DAO agreed upon.
Because I think we can all agree that year 1 & 2 will likely be the bootstrapping years and thus revenue wont be very high, unless AaveLabs has pre-liquidity commitments which would be useful to share with the DAO to estimate potential revenue. Otherwise I do think that solid revenue will only begin in year 3 and later, at which point profit share will be only 10%.
Next up Token Distribution Alignment that part that is the most confusing to me.
-
What is or will be the usecase of a new token?
-
Is if for separate governance? Is governance in a decentralized way even needed for this permissioned market only accessible for accredited entities?
-
Is it to make investors into Aave/ Avara whole? Because thats what VCs usually expect if you are not able to share profit in any other way.
-
Is it a way for Aave Labs/Avara to generate profits because it will have profit sharing as a feature?
I could keep going on, but would rather like to hear your opinion on this.
Also the allocation is pretty disappointing, talking from a perspective of a longterm LEND and AAVE investor and holder. First the total amount reflects what I hate about all the recent projects raising money and then sharing airdrops of a tiny friction of the whole supply with longstanding community member. This is a VC allocation, nothing else. Or what is about the other 85%?
Then only 2% are reserved for staked Aave holder, not even considering other relevant holder that made the DAO what it is today, im talking about people that delegated their voting power and thus their voice to make the Aave DAO what it is today thanks to many delegates, Service provider and individuals as well.
GHO Adoption & Revenue
What will the GHO minting process look like? Will the Aave core instance mint GHO and then lend them to this instance or will the instance be able to mint and thus receive the revenue from GHO borrowing?
Operational Support
What is meant by that?
And with v3 the DAO will control (which?) parts of the instance but as soon as v4 launches it has nothing to do with it anymore, right?
So overall there are a lot questions left open from this proposal but its concerning to see the Aave token kind of being ditched for another product which uses 100% of the Aave codebase which the DAO paid for in several funding proposal and just last year for v4 (12 million).
It seems like AaveLabs & Avara are looking for ways to monetize the product, which is totally fine and I am super happy to support this since Ethlend. The way to get big institutions on-chain pretty sure requires a lot.
But there could be other and better ways, aligned with the community and the DAO.
For example receive fees from Horizon in USDC & GHO and keep them, keep governance for Horizon gated maybe because of legal issues and so on.
I think that way we could create a super dapp called Aave with two branches (Aave markets & Horizon market), one for on-chain degen and on chain treasuries and one for institutions trying to find their way on-chain 100% legal and compliant.