✅ [RFC] Discretionary Management of pre-approved Funds in the AM subDAO

Summary

This RFC would like to gather feedback surrounding the ability for the Asset Management subDAO signer group to manage a pre-approved amount of value located in the subDAO in order to be able to act more swiftly on market opportunities when they present themselves.

A monthly Asset Management report would subsequently be provided in the official forum to keep track of transactions throughout the year.

This is suggested to overall reduce the burden put on Meta Governors to ratify every single new action involving (often previously approved) fund movements performed by the subDAO in the future.

Abstract

The Asset Management subDAO is currently custodying most assets that generate yield for the mStableDAO, and we have taken some very important lessons from the last year managing these funds in a decentralized fashion.

More than once we’ve been unable to benefit from opportune times when the market would have allowed us to enter very promising positions due to the lag introduced by decentralized governance.

The suggested method to remedy this issue is to allow the signer group of the Asset Management subDAO to manage a pre-approved amount of value on behalf of the mStableDAO and it’s Meta Governors.

An initial amount of 500,000 mUSD/tx (unique) worth is suggested to be allowed to be managed freely by the Asset Management subDAO in protocols and assets that were previously used and ratified by Meta Governors in order to avoid introducing too much risk to this new process initially.

This restriction can be lifted at a later stage when we have observed this process to be working as expected and intended.

A monthly Asset Management report will be provided in the official forum to keep track of transactions throughout the year which will list every single transaction done on behalf of Meta Governors, and serve as a historic track record of performance.

Motivation

With the two Convex Finance opportunities listed above, we have learned that we need a much more agile system if we want to continue to remain up-to-date against other DAOs who are already adapting to this changing landscape.

We should therefore follow suit and allow the Asset Management subDAO signer group to take advantage of ecosystem opportunities in a similar fashion.

Pros

  • Be able to take advantage of opportunities in the ecosystem in a timely manner
  • Quickly adapt to changes in already deployed strategies, such as the ones on Convex Finance
  • Offset cumbersome governance processes in the mStable ecosystem for a more agile and flexible system

Cons

  • Centralization surrounding the Asset Management subDAOs spending

Next Steps

It is suggested that the community comment on this RFC in the coming days, and bearing no significant opposition or change in ideation, we would move ahead with this RFC in the coming week and create a formal draft proposal on Github to be used for review.

Meta Governors are encouraged to provide as much feedback as possible until then, so we can create the best possible outcome for mStable and its users.

2 Likes

Thanks a lot for this smart proposal sir
SubDAOs were introduced in the first place actually to enable agility in opportunistic decision making. As a signer, I think such a proposal would help a lot in being able to act quickly and efficiently
Convex recent price movements and various DTOP addendum set a good precedent on how the 3-4 weeks governance window can make complicated an entry on an asset for the DAO

I think it might be helpful to list the

protocols and assets that were previously used and ratified by Meta Governors

which would be whitelisted on this 500k tranche

Thanks Steph, in full support of this proposal.

I’m in full support of this proposal. Be agile!

I concur with Theo. This is one possible approach.

However, what if we would like to use a protocol that has not been listed? We risk being slow again.

I would suggest a Veto approach, have a 3 days cooldown before initiating the tx. If there are some concerns raised, we should discuss them further. If not, execute!

Generally, in favour!

Fair, I’ll include this clause in the proposal moving forward with a list of whitelisted protocols in the forum! :sunglasses:

Regarding the concern raised regarding new protocols, I think a veto process to include new protocol in the whitelist makes total sense. For all other purposes I don’t think it’ll be required or useful, simply due to the fact that we could get permanently trolled :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

If there are any other suggestions or feedback surrounding this, now is the time to make your voice heard!

Otherwise, I’ll begin drafting up a formal TDP for this to be put up next week! :sunglasses: :+1: