Initially I was inclined to vote NO on both
[EP 6.1] [Executable] Convert 6,000 ETH to USDC for DAO Operating Expenses
and
[EP 6.2] [Executable] Endowment expansion (3rd tranche)
However as @5pence.eth puts it
which I agree with. So I’m going to vote YES on 6.1 and NO on 6.2.
My rationale is aligned with @garypalmerjr I think his logic is intuitively correct, it’s just that he is not explaining it in professional finance terms, let me elaborate here.
In theory what should be happening is that before any “asset management” begins, analysis of DAO should be conducted with a holistic approach in mind. What that means is that asset managers should analyze DAO’s income, expenses, provide sensitivity analysis covering various scenarios, demonstrate range of risk / return options and how they would fit into the broad picture, etc etc. The end result of such analysis would be a clear understanding of cash inflows and outflows, and how to best utilize treasury in order to achieve the best scenario for the DAO.
In the case of ENS DAO such holistic analysis was never conducted, and this is the reason why we have 6.1 right now on the agenda. I would think that the people responsible for that kind of analysis would be Karpatkey and / or the DAO secretary. The only reason I’m going to vote YES on 6.1 is because it’s an emergency action needed to cover the existing burn rate now.
I’m voting NO on 6.2 because increasing even more ENS’ assets under Karpatkey management without holistic analysis doesn’t make sense. It’s been close to 2 years now and Karpatkey lead DAO to vote on 6.1.
The only reason 6.1 and 6.2 can exist is because ENS is such a cashcow, in other words such a cash generating machine - consisting of initial cash inflow during token generation and ongoing business daily activities. If it was any other cash-strapped project it wouldn’t be possible to throw such chunks of money around. From my point of view, it doesn’t matter if the project is cash-strapped or not, it is always a good idea to be as prudent as possible.
As for the next steps, in order to improve this situation, I propose that we hire third party independent consultants to conduct a thorough audit, build a comprehensive report of the past financial performance and conduct holistic analysis of the situation. This way we would avoid having 6.1s in the future and any subsequent increase of assets under management would be happening within a structured framework.