Hi! Thank you very much for starting the discussion about treasury management, which I think should be addressed asap.
Overall, I am supportive of the idea of having a treasury manager. However, I have some concerns about the proposed execution.
But first, I believe the DAO’s Mission & Vission recently initiated discussion is crucial, and there cannot be treasury management without first defining them. Once the mission and vision are defined, management must focus on their fulfillment (not just on generating returns for the sake of having returns).
On another note, I would like to see, among the Key Issues that the treasury manager should address, and in fact, as priority number one, the sustainability of the treasury. We need to have clear oversight of the spending executed by the DAO and how each expense impacts the treasury, its sustainability, and the impact on the DAO’s objectives. In fact, I believe that an additional function that should be added to the listed ones is for the treasury manager to comment on each proposal requesting more than “XX” funds and provide an opinion (non-binding for the delegates) regarding its sustainability and impact on the treasury.
Finally, I would like to inquire about the rationale behind creating two committees to execute each of the management’s objectives. In my opinion, we should appoint a single person -or entity- to carry out all the tasks. I don’t understand why we would add operational costs and additional discussions. One person, with clear objectives and KPIs, should be able to perform well and be subject to revalidation by the DAO after a set period. In this sense, I align with and support Gauntlet’s comment on prioritizing automation and tools that enable DAO oversight whenever possible.