[TEMP CHECK] Financial Services Proposal: karpatkey & TokenLogic

Can you all explain the intent behind combining the treasury management scope with the GHO re-peg scope and the safety module scope? At first pass these seem like three very different initiatives, some of which are already in the works.

For example there is already a GHO Liquidity Committee program run by TokenLogic where about half the budget has been spent without much success and without clear future plans for the remaining budget allocation. I would think the GHO scope should be separated and a comprehensive long-term plan developed since the past and current 1-off solutions haven’t been successful.

Also would like to understand what is the plan to manage the conflict of interest with karpatkey considering the work and deposits they have done with multiple Aave forks who are in direct competition with Aave DAO on Gnosis Chain (and potentially elsewhere).

Generally I think the treasury management piece is important, especially for such a large and diverse treasury like Aave DAOs. But do we really think we can get a meaningfully better risk-adjusted return by doing other DeFi strategies than we are getting by just having the assets sit in the protocol and earn interest? This is already a point of debate in other proposals like the RWA allocations, since stablecoin yield on Aave has been quite nice as of late. I would like to hear more about what the value add is for treasury management piece as well considering the current DeFi and real-world rate environment. While I am sympathetic to the idea of diversifying the treasury away from the protocol as a risk management technique, in reality any major issue with Aave would render the treasury assets a moot point anyways.

Supportive overall, but would be great to get some clarification on the above points.