First of all, we are very pleased with this presentation, which addresses many of the concerns and questions we raised in our Driving Protocol Success through Optimized Governance post and does so in a way that we strongly agree with, giving the DAO a key role in decision-making and even in the design of many of the ideas outlined in the Project Miro Roadmap presentation. Some of the ideas put forward are very bold, which is what is needed and what we encouraged in our post above. Also, given the current state of the crypto market, we believe that this is an unbeatable opportunity to address these challenges, a great timing. Congratulations to the Laita team.
We believe this new approach is correct and recommend exploring and investigating the ERC7683 cross-chain intent standard, proposed by Uniswap and Across. This standard has already been adopted by several protocols, including several L2 solutions, and we believe that ParaSwap could benefit from it.
We also believe that this approach is appropriate. Adopting a cross-chain token standard will not only solve some of the current liquidity problems, but will also facilitate the expansion of the token to future chains.
In this context, we would like to add the following cross-chain token standards to the discussion:
• Axelar’s Interchain Token Service (ITS)
• Wormhole’s Native Token Transfers (NTT)
• LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT)
We believe it would be valuable to carry out at least a brief comparative analysis of the standard of choice. Furthermore, we believe it is essential to assess the need to choose a token that is not dependent on a single provider and that can be managed in as many chains as possible, or at least in those where ParaSwap is already present.
This Li.Fi report may contribute to the discussion.
We support the objectives outlined and the proposal to establish bi-annual transparency reports by the Foundation. However, we have some questions regarding how the dynamic between the DAO and the Foundation will be managed in relation to these activities and the allocation of funds.
Specifically, we would like to know whether the Foundation intends to submit the bi-annual reports solely to inform the DAO of actions already taken and budgets already allocated, or if there will be an opportunity for the DAO to participate or provide feedback on decisions before the reports are delivered. If feedback mechanisms are planned, what topics would they cover, and how would this process work?
Retro funding presents a complex system, as it requires voters to have extensive knowledge of the ecosystem, which is not always the case. Moreover, this approach does not ensure an efficient allocation of capital or ensure long-term alignment with participants, due to the lack of predictability as to whether or not they will receive funds after making a contribution that requires effort and time. While this system may be useful for large treasuries, such as Optimism, that need to foster an emerging ecosystem, we do not believe it is the most appropriate mechanism for more limited treasuries and protocols with more specific scopes, such as ParaSwap.
We believe that grants are a tool that should be used to support contributors and teams that want to contribute to ParaSwap in the long term. We therefore propose to evaluate the elimination of Retro funding or, at least (as a more balanced alternative), to significantly reduce its allocation, as we believe that allocating 3% of resources to this system is excessive.
Instead, we suggest prioritising Proto funding through a structured grant system that identifies and promotes between 2 and 4 specific areas of strategic interest for ParaSwap. This would enable the funding of developers who are committed to taking these initiatives forward, ensuring a significant impact aligned with the objectives of the protocol.
We see it as very positive that there is a budget for marketing, growth supply and token listing in CEXs, as this is a recurring request from the community. We appreciate the responsiveness.
We support the idea of being able to participate in DAO voting without the need for staking, as this measure has the potential to increase the number of tokens participating in governance and thus strengthen the DAO’s governance and decision-making system, by allowing users who have no interest in staking their tokens and wish to have them liquid in their wallets (for whatever reason) to vote or delegate their Voting Power, thus removing the pressure to feel obligated to stake their tokens, which would have a negative impact on the percentage of rewards for the rest of the stakers. Likewise, maintaining the 2.5x Voting Power boost for those who provide liquidity through the sePSP2 staking system is a sufficient incentive for those who wish to increase their participation in voting in exchange for a higher commitment to the protocol. We strongly support this idea.
Lastly, regarding the idea of some community members to organise an AMA to discuss this Proyect Miro proposal, we are already taking the first steps to organise it, as we have done on a previous occasion. This Wednesday is the deadline for Delegate applications for the Delegate Trial Program, so we are planning to organise the AMA after that date, primarily to discuss the Project Miro with the @Laita team and also to take the opportunity for delegates who applied for the program can attend the AMA and even present themselves to the community if they wish.