Ok this is awesome. Let’s first start with the green edits of the initial proposal.
This is a key unlock and the key thing we needed more than anything else. We can go as much into granular details as we want, but the high level goal is this: an entity that can be proactive.
Would it make sense to say “expanded into other verticals such as Grants and Governance Frameworks?”
Two things to me here could be a potential improved area:
- we, as a DAO, not always have a consensus about what is X and what is Y. As for this reason, assigning further verticals, as a whole, might not be the best route. I think there is instead a lot lot lot of merit in assignign a specific initiative, that might or might not fall into a vertical scoped in the OpCo. While the danger is that there could be an entity spread too thin in 10 different initiatives of 10 diffenent verticals, the likely outcome is that what is assigned to it by the DAO is either something that falls into the scope, or is just too hard for the DAO to figure out by itself.
I might be overseeing some execution risks here tho, so please let me know if there was any thought on this. The TLDR is that labels of verticals help, but thinking and assigning specific initiative or mission might be more consistent.
So as direct consequences this would be “it can expand OpCo’s mandate to include specific grants intiatives in the future through a Snapshot vote.”
Both makes a lot of sense
Now, on the open question.
I’ll be honest this strategy only make sense if we have a “relative” swift timing. We can see how market is appreciating, and should keep appreciating. Cyclicality suggest that we could have upt to Q3 2025 in this. But here, we are not in the business of forecasting market, while we could indeed take that in account.
With a very gentle and educated guess, i would say that the proposed liquidation, in 6 months, to get $12M worth of cash equivalent, can be effective if we respect the timeline proposed. Which means: if tally is approved, we need to start the process right away. My question is: can we do it, or do we need to wait for the legal entity to be setup? If the former could be done, maybe through AF as custodian, fine, if not, there is a risk in which the plan won’t work as intended. This risk should be relative small, but will indeed exists.
In general, for a project of this size, we shouldn’t be in a situation that we start with the wrong foot (in this case, either we don’t have a good chaos coordinator OR we don’t have the forecasted budget). Understanding that we have an asset that is volatile and that this risk can only be mitigated but not eliminated, I don’t honestly see a mix of the strategy above + using the initial amount (35M) as allocated budget as being bad, knowing that the difference can and will go back to the DAO.
Finally, a smol note. This proposal has been so far gargantuan. Probably one of the most ambitious in a DAO. Kudos for the amount of granularity into incorporating feedbacks, it’s been impressive.