[Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.

Entropy Advisors have delivered another excellent proposal - thank you for your efforts!

We agree with GFXLabs’ concern about bundling multiple items in one proposal. The due diligence done by GFXLabs is what every organization should do when recruiting someone. As a DAO, this is an area we need to improve, so we appreciate GFXLabs’ diligence.

The last bi-weekly call helped us understand Sam’s explanation of Austin’s approach. The fact that payments will be milestone-based gives us confidence. This structure ensures progress, so we decided to vote FOR the proposal to get things moving in the right direction.

We support the idea of linking payments for TMC and GMC members to task completion rather than monthly payments. This approach improves accountability and sets a clear framework for what is completed and paid for. We believe this structure should apply to most proposals.

Since STEP has a similar goal of generating yield for the DAO through RWAs, how will TMC avoid overlapping with STEP? Can TMC use its allocated funds for RWA investments to generate yield?

As mentioned earlier, clear measures to secure DAO funds are crucial. Will the service provider generating yield have risk coverage through insurance providers with players like Nexus Mutual | The crypto insurance? Alternatively, will the DAO get to review the proposal each time a milestone is completed by TMC and GMC?