So I set out to take stock of the DAO’s treasury, thinking that everything would be in the “one” multisig indicated in the documentation. Unfortunately, the assets in the wallet are incomplete.
Let me reassure you right away: all the funds are clearly identifiable and can be found on public addresses available in the documentation here and here.
Transparency is assured, but simplicity of access to this information is less so: what does DAO own?
To be created / communicated / integrated with mimic?
Fee claimer
DAO Wallet Fee Claimer
Base
To be created / communicated / integrated with mimic?
Note that wallet for PolygonzkEVM and Base are still to be displayed in the doc.
Also note that this structure doesn’t feel right with the Smart vault automated flow that should have been created after the Mimic proposal. Please let me know if addresses are to be added or corrected.
Identified assets present on wallets other than the DAO’s main Multisig are:
$PSP in vesting contracts
Some $PSP in the vesting contract are claimable, but not claimed and still in the contract.
Consequences = circulating supply undervalued, can be a deterrent for potential investors + difficulty in identifying DAO’s treasury position.
WETH from staking rewards going to the DAO
Consequence = difficulty in identifying DAO’s treasury position.
Goals & review
The aim here is not to do treasury management, in the sense that this proposal is not intended to use this or that asset.
The sole purpose of this proposal is to reorganise the assets available in the DAO’s public wallets into the wallet that is identified to hold the DAO’s treasury.
Potentially negative points to this proposal:
aggregating assets in a single wallet may increase the risk in the event of a hack. fragmenting liquidity as today avoids a single point of failure. even if it makes reading the DAO’s treasury complicated.
moving these assets will inevitably entail significant work for multisig signatories.
Further analysis may be required to identify whether other assets are eligible for this transfer.
Transfer WETH from fee claimer DAO wallets to the main multisig
Communicate on the transfer / claim of the assets (communicate claim tx following this post each month → could be other tools as discord bot forwarding all wallets activities in a specific channel of ParaSwap discord)
Implementation Overview
This proposal, if accepted, will trigger the transfer and/or claim of assets to the DAO main multisig, doing so, it will clarify the DAO’s treasury state, but also the metrics of the $PSP token (updated circulating supply).
Thank you for summarising all the wallets in one place, that’s impressive work! However, would it not be a lot more efficient (both gas, manpower , and governance procedure wise) to simply suggest an update to our existing docs instead of a full-on proposal?
While the suggestion appears to be costless and simple, in my opinion it introduces an additional layer of bureaucratic overhead (claiming, reporting and moving of assets) monthly which only serves to centralise all assets in a single point of failure. This is even without counting the cost of mainnet transactions, which as gas fees begin to increase again could easily pile up to the hundreds of USD for the sake of neatness.
It’s also important to consider the already intense amount of duties signatories have been assigned to perform the actions. Just as an example, the Governance Committee is already responsible for end-of-epoch distributions, bridging of funds for distribution, gas refund distribution, the latest Aura proposal conversions, upgrade module… is it really wise to add another action when it could be fixed by documentation and a zapper bundle?
Personally , as a DAO we should minimise the number of human-led actions, especially if they are not planned to be temporary or directly help with the decentralisation and development of the protocol.
Indeed, it was high time to migrate sleeping tokens from the vesting contracts to another wallet in order to unlock our supply and simplify the organization of our treasury portfolios.
@0xYtocin, could you be more specific/explicit when you mention the “zapper bundle”? I don’t understand what this action corresponds to.
While I agree with you on the bureaucratic part, we have to release the supply, this needs to be done on a recurring basis as we must maintain an accurate and up-to-date information on websites like TokenTerminal, CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap. Maybe an automated process could be implemented on that part?
The wallet layout did take me some time, but to be honest it was also to remind me of the DAO wallet structure.
And there are a few points I don’t understand that I’m sure you’ll be able to clear up.
Let’s take the topics one by one:
1/ The $PSP vesting claim
Yes it brings additional actions for MS as stated in the negative points of the proposal.
It is up to the DAO to decide whether the accuracy of the $PSP supply is an advantage that justifies this charge.
There is also a compromise where the frequency of claiming can be extended (every 3 months?).
2/ Consolidate staking rewards in the DAO’s main wallet.
You’re right, Zapper could be a solution to visualize assets if scattered on several wallets.
And I’m aware of the workload of the multisig signers.
What I don’t understand though (referring to the first sentence of this post) is that I thought the fee claimer wallet and contract were obsolete with the introduction of mimic’s automated flow and smart wallets.
And so the idea of this proposal was to do a “one shot” clean-up, given that afterwards everything is automated, hence having in mind a limited workload.
At least that’s what I understood from the proposal voted on and illustrated by the image below:
Which is why I don’t understand your reference to managing fund bridges for distribution, because they’re supposed to be automated (except maybe for Base & PolygonzkEVM).
All this to say that I am aware of their workload, but that I thought, if my understanding of the wallet structure is correct, that the load caused by this proposal would be limited.
By the way, do you have any information on these smart wallet or do I need to contact Mimic directly?
Finally, with regard to the administrative burden in terms of transparency, apart from the zapper if the pooling of funds is refused, it would be interesting to integrate a discord room to communicate all the transactions of the DAO’s wallets, using bots such as Cielo.
Transparency YES. Bureaucratic burden NO!
Everyone is happy!
EDIT: of course if my understanding of the wallet / smart vault organisation is wrong I will update the proposal accordingly.
Regarding the PSP claim, to simplify the process and make it more secure & transparent, the ideal will be a pre-agreement on all future claims. I suggest this:
Claiming all year 1 & 2 PSP right after the proposal vote.
Claiming the rest every 6 months: 50% of Year 3 by May 15th 2024; the remaining 50% of Year 3 by Nov 15th 2024
Thanks for the proposal @Albist, and great work! Good to see this re-organization.
Clarifying some of the points raised and also adding my two cents here:
Regarding Mimic and the existence of Fee Claimer wallets
Mimic is handling the automation of fee claims, swaps, and bridges to Mainnet through their Smart Vaults (address for all chains: 0xd5b927956057075377263aab7f8afc12f85100db).
After each epoch’s end, Mimic withdraws DAO fees to Fee Claimer wallet on Mainnet which is currently managed by GovCo (in Mimic’s graph this wallet is called GovCo Multisig)
Balance on Fee Claimer wallets on other chains than Mainnet currently hold DAO funds generated before PSP 2.0 or before Mimic implementation or funds that Mimic couldn’t bridge to Mainnet for other reasons (i.e. Fantom Multichain hack). GovCo manages all Fee Claimer wallets, and balances can be checked here
Regarding consolidating staking rewards in the DAO’s main wallet
Do you propose to bridge all existing DAO funds to Mainnet and transfer to the Main Multisig on Mainnet? Or to create one Main Multisig per chain and transfer to those without bridging? Currently, we have Main Multisig on Mainnet, Optimism, Arbitrum and BSC
Independent of whether it is bridging or without bridging, and same as for PSP claiming suggestion by @Lup, I suggest performing this action every 6 months to avoid adding extra bureaucratic work. This way, we can match PSP claims and withdraw DAO funds from GovCo wallets to Main multisig every 6 months and do both simultaneously.
Regarding the DAO PSP unvesting calendar, indeed maybe monthly is too much work for signers but I also think that every 6 month (as proposed by @Lup) is too slow, so maybe we should cut this in half.
I propose to claim it quarterly as such :
Year 1 & 2
Harvest all remaining tokens first week of jan 2024 (83M + 200M $PSP)
Year 3
Q1 2024 harvest first week of april 2024 (50M $PSP)
Q2 2024 harvest first week of july 2024 (50M $PSP)
Q3 2024 harvest first week of oct 2024 (50M $PSP)
Q4 2024 harvest first week of jan 2025 (50M $PSP)
Year 4
Q1 2025 harvest first week of april 2025 (50M $PSP)
Q2 2025 harvest first week of july 2025 (50M $PSP)
thanks for taking the time to break down how Mimic’s smart vault works in this context.
It really clarifies the situation as far as I’m concerned.
Regarding the reorganisation of the funds now that the fee claimers outside the mainnet are no longer used in the regular flow of smartvaults, I would say:
do a one-shot bridge of non-mainnet assets to the multisig mainnet (focusing on PSP and ETH)
DAO wallets no longer in active use would then be cleaned up, and DAO funds consolidated.
Regarding the repatriation of regular staking rewards from the mainnet fee claimer wallet to the main multisig, I would adopt the same frequency as for $PSP claims.
To summarise the messages from the post, the one-month frequency is considered by all to be too short and too restrictive, and 3 or 6-month frequencies are being considered.
I’m leaning more towards 3 months and will update the proposal accordingly:
new actions for wallet assets
the new claim frequencies
I’m aiming to do a temp check on Saturday so that I can create the snapshot next Tuesday.
So I set out to take stock of the DAO’s treasury, thinking that everything would be in the “one” multisig indicated in the documentation. Unfortunately, the assets in the wallet are incomplete.
Let me reassure you right away: all the funds are clearly identifiable and can be found on public addresses available in the documentation here and here .
Transparency is assured, but simplicity of access to this information is less so: what does DAO own?
To be created / communicated / integrated with mimic?
Fee claimer
DAO Wallet Fee Claimer
Base
To be created / communicated / integrated with mimic?
Note that wallet for PolygonzkEVM and Base are still to be displayed in the doc.
Identified assets present on wallets other than the DAO’s main Multisig are:
$PSP in vesting contracts
Some $PSP in the vesting contract are claimable, but not claimed and still in the contract.
Consequences = circulating supply undervalued, can be a deterrent for potential investors + difficulty in identifying DAO’s treasury position.
WETH from staking rewards going to the DAO
Consequence = difficulty in identifying DAO’s treasury position.
Goals & review
The aim here is not to do treasury management, in the sense that this proposal is not intended to use this or that asset.
The sole purpose of this proposal is to reorganise the assets available in the DAO’s public wallets into the wallet that is identified to hold the DAO’s treasury.
Potentially negative points to this proposal:
aggregating assets in a single wallet may increase the risk in the event of a hack. fragmenting liquidity as today avoids a single point of failure. even if it makes reading the DAO’s treasury complicated.
moving these assets will inevitably entail significant work for multisig signatories.
Further analysis may be required to identify whether other assets are eligible for this transfer.
Means
Claim vesting contract as follow:
Year 1 & 2
Harvest all remaining tokens first week of jan 2024 (83M + 200M $PSP)
Year 3
Q1 2024 harvest first week of april 2024 (50M $PSP)
Q2 2024 harvest first week of july 2024 (50M $PSP)
Q3 2024 harvest first week of oct 2024 (50M $PSP)
Q4 2024 harvest first week of jan 2025 (50M $PSP)
Year 4
Q1 2025 harvest first week of april 2025 (50M $PSP)
Q2 2025 harvest first week of july 2025 (50M $PSP)
Q3 2025 harvest first week of oct 2025 (50M $PSP)
Q4 2025 harvest first week of jan 2026 (50M $PSP)
Bridge and transfer assets to the main multisig:
Bridge/transfer WETH & PSP from fee claimer DAO wallets to the main multisig (except from the mainnet and optimism ones)
Harvest the staking rewards from the mainnet fee claimer to the main multisig on the same dates as the vesting claims
Implementation Overview
This proposal, if accepted, will trigger the transfer and/or claim of assets to the DAO main multisig, doing so, it will clarify the DAO’s treasury state, but also the metrics of the $PSP token (updated circulating supply).
This is outside the scope of the DAO, but the use of a bot relaying transactions from DAO wallets in a specific channel would be a plus in my opinion.
Voting option
Claim $PSP and regroup assets to the main multisig
Claim $PSP but do NOT regroup to the main multisig
@Albist, great work, glad to see everyone aligned here.
My only suggestion to your last version is to avoid bridging and transferring the wETH and PSP balances in the Optimism GovCo wallet, as they are used as a buffer for each Epoch’s Rewards and Gas refund distributions
