I say everything looks good but even with the linkedinn etc. It would greatly reassure the community if we could get face to face recognition, for example conferrence ama with Daniel where we can clearly see you are who you say you are. Also 10% is very high as most people are saying, besides you’ll have control of one of the biggest treasuries in the market, most financial orgs would kill for a 5% fee on such a big treasury. Besides, provided that you succeed this will give you plenty of publicity. The Wonderland DAO is under heavy spotlight and the people that will bring it back to it’s former glory are sure to be publicised, in turn making you alot of possible clients all over the market.
(Edit)
Also following to my ideas, we could also set a benchmark, Say you make the treasury profits of 50m and then the fee could go from 5% to your 10%, which in turn would push your team to earn more and work harder, knowing there would be better pay down the road.(50mil is just a placeholder, this would have to be greatly discussed with the community and with devs)
I have no clue if 10% of the profits is too much or too little, but what other options do we have? We should group together all possible treasury managers to compare right?
Let’s say SkyH invests $100m worth of crypto in something. After a month we earn 10%, but the price of that crypto drops during the month, so at the end the value of the investment + the interest not changes much. So when we count the profit are we counting this price fluctuation in?
This WIPS expectation on your average WL investor to be able to navigate a treasury manager pitch competently, again shows a misunderstanding of why most of us invested in the project in the first place.
I think most of us would be happy to vote on the recommendations of the treasury multi-sig group to whether this is fair or not and inline with the arrangement of the previous TM.
If we are to make the decision via proposal?
1.We would need to know how this compares to similar arrangements and this assessment would need to come from a trusted neutral source.
2.We would need to know what Dani’s opinions on the proposal are?
3.We would need to be able to compare the details of this arrangement to the one that Sifu negotiated for himself when he became TM?
The WIP should be structured on two levels to be delivered to the community; One with pure stats and figures for those that are that way inclined to investigate and query to their hearts content and then another that is a report by a trusted third party that makes simple statements e.g. the proposed commission percentage is in line with industry standards/ the proposed profit percentage and strategies are fair and achievable etc.
Without that I’d have no clue what I was really voting for!
Dani has said he support SkyHopper as TM, he also reviewed the WIP. I doubt he would have approved it to go forward if he did not agree with the terms. @DarkLord_gr
Sifu’s term were based on being co-founder, not TM. Therefore, can’t really compare. Sifu has stated this in Discord before.
Good info, its just hard to take a decision, especially with such a hard terminology, for me that i speak a different language is a lot harder to understand.
i understand some people think 10% is too much and other say its not… so how we can compare if its truly fair percent or not…
Many thanks for the response So what would you recommend someone like me with zero experience of assessing TM pitches compares it too? Sifu’s arrangement is the nearest thing I know of and can relate to…If that information is kept from us with no relevant alternative offered how are we to know if what we’re voting for is a good deal? All advice welcome <3
I’m by no mean an expert, but ultimately, this is the “only” option on the table and it is for a short period.
If we vote yes, we can potentially move forward for 3 months. If we vote no, we have limited progress.
I know there are higher fees out there in Trad and DeFi (of course there are lower fees also). In one of Sifu’s interection with SkyH, Sifu had said he should propose 10% as this could make it extremely profitable for everyone.
As an example, and probably not a good one, the Liquid Staking proposal suggested that we take a 10% management fee. This would be for something that requires a lot less active work.
No, this is wrong, the deal cannot be that they can get their percentage without making wonderland money. The 10% he mentioned is based on profit, not revenue and definitely not without income at all. Read again regarding the high water mark. If they make a loss in a particular month, there is no commission for them, as well as making the deficit/loss of the previous month first, before considering taking their commission for the next month.
Monthly performance fees with a highwater mark makes sense. Seeing people talking about “its to much, quarterly is better, etc. etc.”. If you understand that its on PROFITS (not the treasury balance) and if profits are taken one month and there is a loss they work for fee to earn it back next month. 3 month trial, makes sense. I say aye.
Seconded. In particular, para 1.2 the Treasury Manager should be expected to exceed a “stable yield only” benchmark which would assume the DAO converts all assets into stables and just plonks them into a farm.
The issue with that, is that the TM has no incentive to hold anything in stablecoin yield farms. Therefore, perhaps the benchmark should be a reasonable figure which assumes the average yield for stablecoin farming.
So what would you recommend someone like me with zero experience of assessing TM pitches compares it too? Sifu’s arrangement is the nearest thing I know of and can relate to…If that information is kept from us with no relevant alternative offered how are we to know if what we’re voting for is a good deal? All advice welcome <3