The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting AGAINST the proposal during the temp check.
While we are not opposed to using CDP protocols as a DAO or implementing treasury-backed vaults (TBV) and their safety module, we’re not comfortable with how the proposal is currently structured.
The proposal has intertwined the research, development, and audit of the related smart contracts, without considering the possibility that the research might lead us to the conclusion that we should not proceed or proceed in a different way.
Furthermore, some portion of the analysis - if not all of it - could be carried out through the ARDC, an entity established specifically for this purpose, provided that there is consensus on its desirability from the DAO. We would like first to try using that avenue to get a better understanding of which research directions require further and deeper analysis before allocating additional funds to research. As a DAO Advocate for ARDC we already asked ARDC members to explore ways how they can provide delegates with more information regarding the approach described in this proposal.
Furthermore, we should also first explore how the DAO would go about using a CDP protocol to borrow stablecoins against ARB, from all perspectives, including operational, legal, and risk. Unless there’s an appetite (with significant amounts, justifying spending 250k ARB on R&D) from the DAO to use a CDP protocol in the first place, there’s no need to look into TBV further.
To conclude, while we’re currently voting against the proposal, we respect the authors’ efforts and commitment to driving the initiative forward. We are eager to collaborate with them in a constructive way, exploring the viability of using TBV to safeguard any position the DAO takes in a CDP protocol in the future.