The proposals to close the curve and disperse the DAI were submitted today. I expect the vote to close to curve to pass which means the DAO will need to figure out what to do with the portion designated for DAO liquidity and for the DAO.
I’d like to propose an open Curve Transition Team to take on the big questions we need to answer as a DAO:
What wallet is managing these funds?
Is it the DAO foundation multisig or do we want a Core Treasury and Liquidity team?
Do we want to keep funds in DAI? If not, what else and what percentages?
Where do we want to keep the funds?
Who should meet with the Balancer/QuickSwap/Uniswap teams to try and secure rewards for using them for our treasury?
Where should interest earned be directed?
How are we providing liquidity?
Are we keeping GHST-USDC as our primary liquidity pool?
Are we doing GHST buybacks with the DAI and zapping that into liquidity?
Are we pairing curve DAI with current treasury GHST for immediate liquidity provision?
Is all liquidity managed from the foundation wallet?
Are we turning off GLTR rewards for amGHST since it will be frozen by Aave when the curve is turned off? Can we redirect these to GHST-USDC?
This is a lot of work, but it’s very important. I’d like to secure a 10,000 GHST GHST grant to reimburse members of the CTT for this work and assisting in the transition from the curve over the next few months. It’s important this work be open and available for anyone to contribute and take part in the discussions. Please post here if interested in being a part of this team and if you have specific thoughts on the above.
Lots of work to do, CTT can explore all possibilities/proposals from the DAO and submit a report with all data/simulations/etc… to the DAO/PC.
I think CTT should meet with other DeFi/AMM project to already prepare the ground when curve will be turned off.
Anyone against directors signing TX to swap DAI for USDC via the 1inch limit order (at 1:1 rate)?
Some context : The swap contract must be funded by USDC and not by DAI.
How we handle the swap wasn’t specified in the proposal, and I don’t know if it has to go through a whole proposal. (imo, it should not)
The directors (and I) do not feel comfortable doing decision making on how to swap, that’s why we are asking in this message if everyone/the DAO agree that we use 1inch limit order ?
(The advantage of using 1inch limit order would be to have less slippage and no time constraint on the 5 signatures collecting)
Note: Too bad we don’t have a treasurer, he could have made sure the instructions for signing the TX were clear and there is no place for interpretation/decision making for the directors.
Seems like each of these gotchas should be like this - tell us we need to include X info next time, then tell us you guys made a call, what it was, and why, and then expect us to do it correctly, next time.