[Temp Check] DAO treasury management

Status Draft
Discussion Thread Discuss
Votes TBD

Abstract

Ensure ENS DAO has enough LUSD / RAI / USDC / GUSD to pay contributors in stables for at least 18 months.

Justification

Currently the DAO keeps almost 100% of it’s treasury in ETH, although ENS as a protocol is almost entirely focused on Ethereum, having this much exposure to one asset leaves the DAO, its contributors, and its sustainability in a potentially vulnerable position.

This social proposals outlines a treasury management proposal to convert 25% of the total ETH held by the ENS DAO and registrar controller into stablecoins (specific stablecoin/s tbd following community discussion) This would represent: ~1023 ETH from the ENS DAO wallet and ~8634 ETH: Totalling ~9657 ETH which = ~$12m USD.

Specification

  • Upon passing this proposal, the DAO will vote to implement an executable proposal that:
    • Creates the onchain proposal to send the 9657 (could just round to 9600 or 9700?) ETH to the contract.
    • Creates the onchain proposal to launch the auction.

These stablecoins would be custodied by the same wallets as the existing ETH treasury.

Transactions

Address Value Function Argument Value
Address or ENS name of target 9600 ETH Function identifier First arg First value
3 Likes

Why not propose this directly as an executable proposal? A social proposal isn’t required first.

And it should be more specific about the amount - not just “at least”. Personally I would favor 16m/24mo.

2 Likes

Good to get discussion from the community.

On things such as:

  1. Which stablecoin we should use
  2. If the delegates/community is happy with the 25%
  3. Being more specific about things like ‘At least’ (great feedback @nick.eth)

Based on:

The $12m would be 18 months, liking taking us to a significantly different stage of the market (Ideally growth for ENS and ETH price!)

3 Likes

An executable proposal doesn’t preclude discussion from the community - that happens during the draft phase in either case.

1 Like

Is there something missing? I always felt before putting any proposal forward that one should put up a proposal for RFC so it could be shaped by the community. This determines interest, and also allows informal discussion to occur so the proposal can be either rejected flatly, or shaped into something more people can accept.

Example related to the above.

Suggestion for something to include in such a discussion.

  1. How to perform the ETH sale. The rate of sale, and over what time period. Whether there are any pricing conditions.

I agree with @James that some thought should be put into this. Now whether you @nick.eth feel that some alternative process should be followed. I guess that is another process discussion.

I do agree that some clarification on specifics would be useful.

As to what stables. Coming from MakerDAO I have to wonder why DAI isn’t included (as RAI and DAI I think are the only two stablecoins that can’t blacklist addresses or update token contracts on the fly).

But these are details for important RFC type discussion.

Is this looking to replace giving funds to the endowment?

Right - that is what we’re discussing right now. The proposal being discussed as a draft can be either social or executable; there’s no requirement that there’s a social process precedes an executable proposal on the same subject.

Not as I understand it, no.

1 Like

Hey builders! Does anyone want to add his quote to the article? If so PM me.

Given this tweet of 25% of ENS treasury makes me think we really need to discuss the treasury itself.

What I see is that ENS has vast majority of value in ENS (~10M ENS at ~13.5 is about 135M that there is no plan to sell) the rest is ETH, and some USDC.

Numbers from original post.

and

So actually the tweet isn’t really correct by saying 25% of its treasury it really should be 25% of the ETH in the treasury.

I see numbers being put forward of about 30-35K ETH in ENS treasury and what 2-3M USDC and there are different posts where this is broken down (mostly the ENDAOment proposal posts.

Is there a consistent place that people should use to track treasury assets to break down total inflows and outflows to working groups, grants, etc.? If not perhaps some sort of dashboard should be created so someone could take daily snapshots to monitor treasury flows. ENS DAO is going to need this at least as a base level reporting tool.

If there isn’t a consistent place for financial tracking (of all inflows and outflows) perhaps in parallel with this proposal (but neither has to be contingent on the other) we should put up a proposal to build such a ENS financial tracking dashboard that can be used for ENS financial reports and build easily accessible financial transparency for the DAO. Almost could consider doing something like this a public good honestly and structure it as such. I have a lot on my plate personally atm but would be happy to help determine a specification that comes close to what companies report in their 10-Q’s.

2 Likes

+1 to Nicks comment, this proposal isn’t looking to replace the endowment, only the other Routine DAO treasury management proposal.

+1 here on the specific language, wanting to convert 25% of the ETH treasury, not overall treasury.

+1, i know there’s the Datastudio dashboard but it’s pretty hard to navigate. A grant to create an easy to read dashboard makes total sense.

3 Likes

I don’t think this has to be a replacement to that, either. This deals with immediate exchange, while the other proposal handles ongoing operations.

Can you elaborate on what would make it better?

Can we start to dig into details? My suggestions:

  • Start with only USDC. It’s what we use for operations right now, and we can diversify later.
  • The easiest option for the exchange is probably a short (~24h) Gnosis Auction that starts shortly after the executable vote closes. This can be initiated by the DAO without the same timing constraints as a regular swap, and will fetch us a price not far off market.

An alternative would be to ask Karpatkey to set up a gnosis multisig specifically for the exchange, which can do the swap and send the proceeds but not touch the funds.

Ok in that case I’d be okay with executing this one first, perhaps it will give us a bit more breathing room to further discuss ongoing management.

1 Like

So! on next steps:

+1 to just doing USDC for now (unless the community/delegates want to suggest another single stablecoin (I do like the decentralised idea of LUSD, RAI, DAI, but get we can diversify the stables later))

In terms of how to exchange the ETH > stables: the Gnosis Auction of ETH makes sense, the main priority will then be ensuring there’s enough publicity from ENS that it’s happening so the price is matched.

Technical next steps: (from my understanding but others with more technical scope pls correct me)

  • Creating a safe controlled by the DAO to launch the auction through.
  • Creating the onchain proposal to send the 9657 (could just round to 9600 or 9700) ETH to the safe.
  • Creating the onchain proposal to launch the auction.
2 Likes

That’s not necessary - the DAO can directly propose a transaction that creates and funds the auction.

Can you change your proposal to be Executable and to specify the necessary details? I can help with formulating the function call that would be required.

Even though they are not competing proposals, they have the same goal, right? Creating a fund to sustain ongoing operations. At Karpatkey, we are working to figure out the funds that are going to be available for the endowment. In fact, we plan to share a post with further details shortly. As of now, we are assuming that $16MM (subject to confirmation) will be set apart to create a 2-year runway fund. We now assume that the funds within the scope of this proposal are also part of the aforementioned fund.

Either approach should work well. Given the amount of ETH involved, a few direct swaps of ETH for USDC in a DEX like CowSwap should not incur in high slippage. I just conducted a quick simulation to swap 2000 ETH for USDC and the incurred slippage would be 0.1%, which seems reasonable. The job can be done in 5 swaps or even less. Karpatkey can help with setting up a Gnosis multisig for this exchange.

Updated. Let me know what else should be added here!

Address Value Function Argument Value
Address or ENS name of target 9600 ETH Function identifier First arg First value

I think the conservative assumption is to assume $16M will be set aside. This proposal forms part of that.

Agreed! I simply thought a one-off Gnosis auction might be easier to set up and lower complexity.

1 Like
Address Value Function Argument Value
0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2 9600 ETH deposit
0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2 - approve guy 0x0b7fFc1f4AD541A4Ed16b40D8c37f0929158D101
wad 96000000000000000000
0x0b7fFc1f4AD541A4Ed16b40D8c37f0929158D101 - initiateAuction _auctioningToken 0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2
_biddingToken 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48
orderCancellationEndDate 1671753600
auctionEndDate 1671757200
_auctionedSellAmount 96000000000000000000
_minBuyAmount 9600000000000
minimumBiddingAmountPerOrder 100000000000
minFundingThreshold 100000000000
isAtomicClosureAllowed true
accessManagerContract null
accessManagerContractData 0x

I’ve somewhat arbitrarily set the following parameters (which can be adjusted):

  • Auction ends December 23rd 00:01:00 UTC, with final bid cancellations 1 hour earlier
  • Min sell price is $1000 per ETH
  • Min bid size is $100k

The text of the proposal also needs adjusting to reflect that it’s now an executable proposal.

I like that idea. I encourage conversation with @PublicGoods_Stewards and to have it be brought forth in the Working Group agenda at the beginning of the new year.

1 Like

Tyty for the parameters @nick.eth - One thought, having such a large & important auction happen right before Christmas might end up being a risk (not enough USDC being deposited). Thinking we should do the auction on the second week of Jan?