[TEMP CHECK] Financial Services Proposal: karpatkey & TokenLogic

[Dydymoon]

@karpatkey_TokenLogic

For operational simplicity and alignment with the DAO’s strategic objectives, evolving the GHO Liquidity Committee into the Aave Liquidity Committee is a logical step. The proposed change involves updating the multisig to replace @Dydymoon with @Sisyphos (karpatkey), reflecting our commitment to this new direction.

Hello, can you explain why you’re proposing to remove me from the Committee and why would require to be included in your service provider proposal please ?

This change basically involves removing a DAO contributor with a proven track record for the past 3 years without explanation to add someone who never posted on the Aave forum.

@lbsblockchain

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.

Agree with this point. The migration from the GHO liquidity Committee to Aave Committee should be done in a separate proposal from the Service provider request with a clear explanation of changes as the current one is missing a lot of informations. This new proposal could also potentially include a new election if needed to replace signers.

@karpatkey_TokenLogic

The refined scope primarily focuses on Treasury Management, GHO Liquidity/adoption and the Safety Module.

@karpatkey_TokenLogic

As part of the scope, karpatkey and TokenLogic will focus on modeling the SM performance during shortfall events and present proposals to diversify asset categories. This proposal will feature how the DAO can utilize the vlAURA position, realize synergies between GHO Liquidity and overall attempt to reduce the DAOs insurance fund spend.

@lbsblockchain

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.

Some context if people didn’t follow everything related to SM upgrade proposals:

• The SM proposal scope was under Llama until the end of September, all SM TEMP CHECKs were posted with their account & I kept working on it by myself after their contract ended until now. Technical implementations related to the SM are on BGD scope.

• In August, I started by explaining the AIP-42 impacts & that we should change the strategy in this TEMP CHECK approved.

• Mid September, I shared an update on the SM proposal explaining why it wasn’t live & the following steps.

• Late September, I submitted the associated ARFC forum post proposing two options: Swap BAL for vlAURA or Lock BAL for veBAL & acquire vlAURA.

• After leaving TL, I also said that I’d continue to contribute on the SM Upgrade proposal & treasury management topics (on which updating the DAO BAL holdings was the first step to improve the SM strategy)

• Karpatkey suggested a 3rd option as a compromise with auraBAL staking & a smaller AURA acquisition, which was included in the ARFC snapshot vote.

• ACI claimed the vote didn’t reached the quorum & most likely asked that Karpatkey to resubmit the ARFC with their only option, removing both of mine despite some options being voted, as explained here.

• This new ARFC was not executed right away, but I started to work on estimations to optimize the new strategy according to the DAO holdings.

• Late October, TokenLogic published an TEMP CHECK to update the SM, which was basically copying most of the updates posted one month before, as demonstrated here. This SP proposal is just a masked follow up of it.

• Once the vlAURA & auraBAL acquisition were executed by the committee in November, I communicated in this group that I’d publish the SM ARFC in the following days, focused on single assets diversification (StkGHO & StkwETH inclusion) & volatile LP (AAVE/wETH) migration approved in the Llama TC.

• Mid November, I submitted the SM Upgrade ARFC forum post, which have been ignored so far (including by TokenLogic & ACI despite being aware of it in the Committee channel earlier - still 0 comment at the moment)

• A few days later, ACI posted an ARFC to include GHO in the SM, despite knowing it was already included in the ARFC I published earlier.

It’s worth noting that these proposal came just after the SM ARFC I posted a few days ago (with the same goals & details on strategies but ignored by the authors of these posts).

Disappointing to see this kind of behaviors which gives a very bad image of the DAO.
“Give credit where it’s due” should be a core value of the Aave governance.

Moreover, contributors should have the ability to propose ideas-initiatives & get attention/feedback from paid delegates & SPs, even without technical skills to fully implement it (that’s why the Aave DAO potentially funds various entities over $19M/year according to this post).

@karpatkey_TokenLogic

According to the latest forecasted expenses, the DAO’s 12-month budget is over $19M.