Strongly supportive of this proposal. Having worked with @TokenLogic Team and their contributors over the years, they have been great advocates for the Aave DAO. I hope the DAO formally onboards them as a service provider, and look forward to them continuing to be a great collaborators in the future!
After working closely with @MatthewGraham and other members of the team in their previous roles with Llama and currently under @TokenLogic, I can attest to their professionalism and commitment to the success of Aave, and I believe they are well-positioned to deliver on the important items outlined in the scope of this engagement.
A key aspect of this engagement (and any other service provider engagement) will be how the community can evaluate its success. Although broad, the definition of success section in the proposal is important as a basis for community discussion and future reference. This should help in evaluating performance and the delivery on the scope of the engagement.
Looking forward to continued collaboration with the @TokenLogic team!
First off, supportive of TokenLogic becoming a paid service provider. My experience working with Matthew has proven to me that TokenLogic will execute, put in a lot of work, and pursue ideas that they believe are good for Aave vigorously.
That being said - I think 350K for 6 months is excessive for a team of this size with a scope this broad.
Imo, TokenLogic should be extremely specific in scope. Identify an area that they are uniquely suitable for - and nail it. Charge less for 6 months, and then once you have proven you can nail a specific scope increase price and heighten goals.
@TokenLogic has been a crucial contributor to the Aave DAO and is exactly the type of service provider that should be funded and retained to continue the forward motion and growth of the protocol. Their prior work related to growing revenues via liquidity, pools, and new assets has been instrumental.
With that said, this proposal is both expensive and broad-reaching in its scope, not too dissimilar from the original Llama proposal last year that was proposed to be canceled. If TokenLogic is the best service provider for this full array of activities, then the DAO should formalize and approve this proposal, but the community should do its homework on other potential providers to ensure it has all the information it needs to make that decision.
I have been working on a framework for this exact situation that I was planning to propose in short order, but finalized and published this evening in response to this conversation. This proposal outlines a new process for determining key problems facing the DAO and asks for potential service providers to bid on that work vs. the other way around. More information can be found here.
Before voting on this proposal, I believe we should be able to compare the offerings against other major industry players to ensure that Aave is getting the best service at the best price. Multiple other protocols have had similar conversations around both treasury management and financial reporting and Aave should take lessons from those vendor diligence conversations and apply them here.
Specifically, I would like to see proposals from more vendors on both of these topics, such as:
- Financial reporting: Messari, Steakhouse, r3gen finance
- Treasury management: Karpatkey, Avantgarde, Llama, Alastor, Mimic
The community and the protocol will benefit from a competitive bidding process for this work and, if selected, TokenLogic will be validated as the best suited for this role.
@TokenLogic has definitely proven their capabilities to contribute for the DAO and we’re supportive of them becoming a service provider.
A few remarks though:
- We’re fully aligned with @benhoneill here. We see that again, this is becoming quite a broad scope and the definition of success is good but not enough. More tangible results and granularity is needed on that part. For example, there is no mention of Safety Module work on the KPIs.
- We believe that on the Treasury management part there are other vendors that could provide their capabilities on a deeper level than TokenLogic.
- For the argument around budget - we do think it’s potentially excessive and can be reduced by considering to put the treasury management aspect into a bid for vendors. The vendors can charge a fee on AUM & tangible results (performance fee) rather than a "Service Provider stream of a broader scope. While @TokenLogic has been active on Treasury management, we feel like this is a “cherry on top” to try and justify the stream that is asked here. We encourage them to consider also an AUM based approach and compete with other vendors on this topic.
As one of the biggest DAO’s, there should be multiple proposals to evaluate opportunity and costs.
Additionally, would be great to know what are the costs associated for infrastructure and tooling. This would give a more transparent way to evaluate the budget needed.
We believe an RFP process such as the Framework for Service Provider Engagements outlined above is a necessary step for DAOs to ensure they are getting both the maximum value from services rendered and the best possible price.
Having specialized in financial reporting for over 40 protocols, we’d like to offer our services as we feel we’re able to provide them at a lower cost through our economies of scale/data capabilities and with unique value add given our institutional partners (redistribution on the Bloomberg Terminal, S&P CapIQ, Refinitiv).
Additional details on our services can be found in our earlier Temp Check which can revise with a narrower scope and lower price based on the feedback we received.
It’s becoming clear there is demand for an RFP process here. I support this especially for the case of DAO treasury management and reporting - there are absolutely a tonne of candidates for the DAO to consider.
If possible, I’d think it would be best to wait until the outcome of @benhoneill’s proposal before moving forward on this one!
In general i support this proposal, but i see it like @Hazbobo. There is a need for a framework for service provider, but one which isn’t going to kill the current speed and dynamic the DAO has. We haven’t found it yet imho.
Also i want to add someting here. I would like to see a budget plan for the funds being asked for.
Like what are they being used for, how many people are TokenLogic, what will happen with remaining funds, will we see updates regarding the costs.
I would like to avoid a situation we recently had with Llama where funds had been sent and were gone. I want to know where they are going and how they are being used.
I wanted to join in on the great discussion here and add that I have also thoroughly enjoyed working alongside @MatthewGraham and the @TokenLogic team. Their contributions have proven to be incredibly valuable and their unwavering dedication and support towards Aave is truly admirable. TokenLogic’s commitment to promoting transparency, organization, and sustainable growth for Aave and GHO is a refreshing and much-appreciated approach. I am delighted to offer my continued support to them, as I am confident that their efforts will lead to even greater successes for the Aave ecosystem in the future.
It’s clear TokenLogic’s contributions and commitment to Aave so far.
The team has diverse perspectives and would add value by becoming a Service Provider but I wonder if this current proposal is the proper construct – there feels opportunity for improvement.
It feels a little too much like Llama 2.0…
I echo @0xkeyrock.eth’s sentiment shared above the scope is too broad.
In particular, we would be more supportive if Treasury Management and Financial Reporting was omitted from this scope. We believe there are stronger teams with more relevant experience.
Quickly the “cost-conscious” DAO’s expenses are ballooning in August:
Sigma Prime 162k
It seems worth slowing this down, better evaluating alternative proposals (and RFPs @benhoneill), and encouraging more specialization – especially while Llama has a month left to execute its scope.
TokenLogic has shown a lot of potential for the DAO. The work scope is too broad and it feels that it could be too similar to what ACI does. TokenLogic could be a good BD team for AAVE, but anything related to Finance and treasury Management should be delegated to another SP with a strong track record.
Well the scope in the recent Flipside has been too broad too imho…
And to add some more thoughts, i do echo there is the need of a finacial update, maybe monthly of how funds have been used. This should be transparent to us Aave holder in order to estimate future budgets and their fair value.
For example the ACI only asked for 250k and has quite a similiar scope when checking both TEMP CHECKS.
Its up to the DAO but i think we should take more care of how much a service provider should receive. And if they need that much, i want to see it explained in detail. Every bank would do the same and every company so we shouldn’t play with that money.
I would say TokenLogic has a strong track record when looking at the member but i agree the scope needs to be more defined.
There is a Messari proposal that didn’t level up: [TEMP CHECK] Aave x Messari Protocol Services - #6 by JackPurdy_Messari I would like to see a financial report from an external vendor rather than from a service provider like Llama or TokenLogic. I think what we are missing as a DAO is a comprehensive report about the current state of things as a whole, what things are missing, and what things can be improved, We need to shift the way we engage with the SPs by telling them what we need, not the opposite. The current conversation around this proposal is a good first step: [Temp Check] Implementation of an RFP Framework for Service Provider Engagements many players trying to do the same thing is not healthy.
I totally agree but there is one problem i see. Who do you think has enough knowledge to tell what the DAO needs?
I am quite active and still i would say i couldn’t answer this, at least not alone by myself.
That would be something a new service provider should do. Find these things and tell the DAO about it and maybe even estimate costs if possible.
100%, maybe it’s a task for an external auditor, but we are coming to a point that we need that report.
Thank you for participating in the discussion. It is great to see many contributors commenting on the proposal.
Based upon the feedback above, we have amended our propsal to cater for the emergence of a potential RFP process in the future. To this end, we have made the following adjustment:
210,000 0 GHO
140,000 350,000 GHO
This is a
60/40 0/100 split of upfront/streamed.
If the RFP process is to adopted our reward stream will be cancelled or amended in line with any future work scope. This provides the DAO with the following:
- Maximum flexibility going forward
- Avoids any delay to existing work scopes
- Recognises our ongoing contribution to Aave
We welcome other contributors to the Aave ecosystem, and are happy to implement proposals put forward by other teams. We have invested time, funds and effort in developing the skills necessary to implement changes to Aave Protocol. We firmly believe all of the DAOs funds shall remain controlled by the DAO via the on-chain governance process wherever possible.
In response to some feedback, we can share the following details about the team supporting this proposal:
@DeFiJesus - Solidity Developer
@agentmak - Frontend Developer
@scottincrypto - Backend Developer
@Dydymoon - Strategist
@MatthewGraham - Strategist
Accounting Team (currently reviewing legal contracts)
We also intend to onboard an additional developer to provide more capacity and redundancy within the team. When fully resourced, the team will be around 4.5, or more, FTE. We also use a graphics designer to support the frontend design which is included in the FTE count due to its adhoc nature.
We intend to move forward with our proposal as we are actively contributing to the Aave Protocol, Safety Module modelling, Treasury Management and GHO adoption. We would like to highlight that we are flexible and will work to accommodate the outcome of any RFP process by way of amending the payment stream to reflect any progressions within the DAO.
The below highlights work that is live on various governance forums:
- Treasury Management - Avalanche v2 to v3 Migration
- Treasury Management - Acquire AURA
- Treasury Management - Swap B-80BAL-20wETH to USDC
- Treasury Management - Migrate AGD to GHO Funding
- GHO Liquidity - GHO/USDT/USDC Gauge Proposal
- GHO Liquidity - Kill Legacy GHO Pools
- Polygon v2 Deprecation - Merged Payload
There were also a couple GHO specific integrations announced and there are others soon to be announced as well.
Due to recent personal changes within the Aave Community, TokenLogic is being added to many GHO discussions. TokenLogic is becoming the focal point for GHO integrations.
The TokenLogic team has contributed a lot to Aave and we think they would be a great service provider for GHO Liquidity / Incentives Management, GHO adoption, and Safety Module improvements. For treasury management and financial reporting, there are many candidates and we’d like to see an RFP process.
It would be helpful to have a breakdown of the proposed budget (350k GHO) by focus areas, ie., X GHO for for safety module improvements, Y GHO for treasury management, etc. This way, if the DAO decides to pursue an RFP for one of the focus areas, we would have clarity now on how much to amend the TokenLogic stream, instead of having to debate about it later and delay action.
I will try to ask the same question here, @TokenLogic is it possible to have a budget breakdown? Some community members would appreciate to have a more granular budget in order to decide what to do with this proposal
We would encourage readers to look beyond the title of the vertical and dive into the specific tasks that are outlined to determine if this proposal represents value. There are a lot of details in this proposal and there is a lot of potential scope across the verticals which is omitted.
If the RFP process elects to divided up the various elements, we would suggest the modelling of the SM, GHO Liquidity Incentives, GHO POL and strategic assets be grouped together to streamline the DAOs operations. These are very interrelated and complex topics.
During the RFP process we will provide further details around the cost breakdown. To do so now, may adversely affect our chances of being successful during the RFP process.