Crypto is a fast moving environment and Wonderland’s current governance framework does not allow us to move with much swiftness. With the recent discussion aimed at providing guidelines for the Treasury Manager and increasing the DAO’s “control” on how the treasury is being managed, I believe it is a good opportunity to implement a better structure around these decisions.
A Treasury Management Proposal (TMP), similar to a Wonderland Improvement Proposal (WIP), is to be voted on by the DAO through Snapshot. However, unlike a WIP, the TMP would not need to go through a DAO Discussion and a Request for Comment as outlined in the current governance process.
A TMP would be posted by the Treasury Manager ™, or a delegate team member (core or non-core) explaining the reason for the TMP and the options proposed to the DAO.
The former proposal on governance over treasury actions and strategy had good examples of use cases for a TMP:
- Voting delegation. When the time for a vote comes, the TM (or a delegate) could post a TMP with the different voting options (either all or the ones recommended by the TM) and have the DAO vote on their preferred option.
- Risk limits. If risk limits were imposed with some margin, a TMP could be used to modify the limit imposed within the voted margin (e.g. increase seed investment allocation from a predefined amount).
A TMP should only be used for actions that fall under existing treasury management guidelines.
Due to a TMP bypassing the regular governance process, there needs to be certain limits to prevent the mismanagement of the treasury funds by rushing the process.
A TMP should not be used to modify terms of previously voted WIP that are not directly related to treasury management or does not allow that flexibility (e.g.liquid staking, redemption, $SIFU investment, etc).
A TMP should not be used for seed investments or buying specific tokens. The TM has the discretion to do these kinds of investments on their own. If, for any reason, the TM should need a vote from the DAO (e.g. conflict of interest), it should go through the regular governance process to ensure due diligence is done.
If it is unclear whether a certain treasury management situation can be dealt with using a TMP, the guidelines should be clarified and the regular governance process used.
How long should a TMP vote be posted for ?
- I believe a TMP should be up for 48h minimum. A TMP is not meant to be used in case of emergency and should, in theory, be fairly simple in nature. The voting period could be longer if desired by the TM depending on the nature of the vote (e.g. plenty of time before the outcome of the vote is required).
Should there be a delay between the vote and the TMP being posted ?
- The current governance process requires a WIP to be up 4 days before voting is available. I don’t believe such a delay is required for a TMP. That being said, the snapshot vote should not be live before the TMP post.
Should the vote include a status quo/no change option ?
- Having a no change option might be more obvious in situations like changing the risk limits, but it may not be as obvious for voting delegation. Should the option to make no change be mandatory even if it is not recommended by the TM depending on the situation ? I believe it should be mandatory to ensure that the DAO has the option to turn down any TMP should it feel the need to.
Should a TMP be approved by a forum moderator before publication ?
- Just like a WIP, I believe it should be approved by a forum moderator to ensure it has the required information, is clear and concise, and follows the minimum requirement.
Edit: This would also help with the coordination of announcing the proposal. This would also help with the snapshot not being posted before the TMP is approved/published.
Scope of TMP ?
- Currently no guidelines on treasury management have been voted on. How should we define what future guidelines apply (or not) to TMP ? How far should a TMP be allowed to go (e.g. changing directional asset exposure from 30% to 100%) ? Personally, I believe these should be addressed in the guidelines directly. In the absence of such information, should it fall under the regular governance process until the guideline is properly updated ?