Project Miro Roadmap - A DAO Beyond Aggregation

[aypierre]

I really like the idea and looking forward to the next step.
One question though : you didn’t reveal any time estimation or planning for these changes, can we except to have an estimation ? Or is it too soon ?

[Murat]

could you include portikus ownership of the DAO?

[SEEDGov]

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.

@Laita

Following our recent all-time high in volume, we want to leverage this leading position to expand beyond just aggregation, expanding our mission to strengthen both ParaSwap as a product and the scope of a DAO as the home of intent-centric trading. We are codenaming this roadmap of upgrades Project Miró.

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.

@Laita

In addition to allowing for rediscussing the allocation of the tokens and migration mechanisms, this also allows for a different implementation of the tokens, such as xERC20 or ERC-7802 (or SuperchainERC20). This could help resolve the liquidity problems seen with PSP on chains such as BSC and Polygon, as the cross-chain standard would allow for these tokens to still be easy to swap and then bridge to the desired chain of custody.

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.

@Laita

Foundation Facilitated Allocation

…

To ensure that the Foundation adheres to the allocation’s stated purposes and facilitate communications with the DAO, we propose that the Foundation produce a bi-annual transparency report on its initiatives advancing Project Miró since the last report was shared.

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?

@Laita

• Retro funding: 3% to reward tangible impacts made on the ecosystem, following objectives set by the DAO
• Proto funding: 4% to the development of future initiatives that will support the growth of the ecosystem.

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.

@Laita

Listing, Marketing, and Growth Supply for Miró

One of the most common suggestions following the launch of ParaSwap DAO has been the possibility of allocating a portion of the supply for growth-based ventures, such as listing on centralized exchanges and marketing initiatives.

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.

@Laita

Firstly, sePSP2 stakers should be rewarded greater than unstaked PSP. Special incentives should be deployed during migration to reward long-term and aligned community members. Regarding sePSP1, we would like to ask the community for their opinion, as based on the feedback we have received, it would be better to encourage consolidation of staked versions into liquidity-based tokens, while the voting-only version could be on the governance token itself.

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.

@citizen42

To ensure the community fully understands Project Miró and its benefits, I propose hosting an AMA session. This will provide a platform for community members to ask questions about the roadmap, token migration and the protocol’s future direction long term.

@dseeker

Brilliant ideas. I agree 100% about your marketing suggestions and the AMA.

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.

[jameskbh]

This is an ambitious roadmap for Paraswap, as it proposes an expansion to other fields. I believe this is the right move to do, and the details shared so far are solid foundation to star this move.

I’m keen of the idea to simplify the governance voting-related token options, specially the interest of moving to a liquid-based token schema for staking (somewhat deprecating sePSP1. My only attention point is that the one that decided to stake should not be deprived of their voting rights. Something similar to what Aave does could be a good approach to maintain those rights.

[venum]

Ok so first of all I see lots of good things with this miro project and so I wanted to thank you, now here are my questions:
-Is there a roadmap? any planned dates for the launch of the vote? the project? the listings?
-On which CEX do you plan to list the token?
-Right now it’s hard to see which addresses (especially the DAO/team) hold how many tokens. Is there going to be a dune or something like that to list where the various tokens are, so as to have a clearer overview?
-Understanding laita’s different products (paraswap, delta v2, augustus, portikus) is pretty confusing at the moment. Are we going to see any educational efforts in this direction?

[Julio]

Invitation to Community Call / AMA - Thursday 12th December 2024 at 3pm UTC

Given the enormous importance of the Project Miro Roadmap proposed by Laita for ParaSwap and its DAO, and taking into account the suggestions of some members in this post, we understand that it will be of great interest to organise again an AMA or Community Call with the community, as we did before on 24th October, this time to discuss this important post that proposes a future vision of the protocol and its DAO, and to invite a member of Laita to explain some concepts and answer questions that …

[Avantgarde]

Hi team, thanks for sharing this—it’s clear a lot of thought and effort has gone into Project Miró and shaping the future direction of ParaSwap. Well done! On the whole, very much agree with the ambition and timing of this proposal. @SEEDGov makes plenty of good suggestions and points that I’d reemphasise. The broader scope for the DAO also feels like the right step forward, and the proposed token distribution seems reasonable.

That said, I do have a couple of concerns around the grants program and the DAO’s involvement:

Forced Participation in Governance for Grant Recipients. While I understand the desire to ensure alignment between grant recipients and the DAO, I am not entirely convinced that forcing them to participate directly in governance is always optimal as it could add significant workload when, in my opinion, builders should focus on what they do best: building rather than governance. I see no harm in encouraging builders to participate if there is a desire and willingness to do so, but forcing teams that rather just build doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Ultimately, this is what delegates are for—to represent the community and oversee alignment. I think a better way to achieve alignment is through clear KPIs and milestone-based funding, where grants are distributed in tranches as measurable milestones are hit to ensure accountability without adding unnecessary responsibilities for grant recipients.

DAO-Wide Involvement on All Grants. To be frank, I don’t think it’s reasonable to involve the whole DAO in evaluating and voting on all grants, which could add significant workload if there are many grant proposals. I believe a more practical solution would be to create a Grants Committee to handle at least the bulk of the evaluation process. As a middle ground, the committee could shortlist proposals for the DAO to vote on to allow the community the final say while keeping the process more efficient.

A few other considerations around best practices for the grants program:

• Implementing a full lifecycle model and organizing grants into specific cycles and categories can streamline the review process by providing structure, transparency and effective tracking from application to outcomes

• Allowing partial upfront funding with the majority tied to milestones encourages accountability and measurable progress

• Establishing a standardized payment structure, such as 20% upfront and the rest tied to milestones, ensures clarity and incentivizes deliverables

• Using an external grants framework can be helpful to improve efficiency by leveraging established management tools

• One idea is also to have specific focuses for each grants round to narrow applications and align funding with specific strategic goals

Would also agree with @SEEDGov’s points on retro funding, and likewise be interested to hear more on how you see the relationship between the Foundation and the DAO going forward.

One last point, to strengthen the flywheel and token utility, maybe it could be worth exploring a liquid staking vault?

Excited about the direction ParaSwap is heading with Project Miró and look forward to seeing how these ideas take shape!

/Erik

[jengajojo_daoplomats]

Excited to see how the proposed roadmap can help the evolution of the DAO as well as the product. Here are my thoughts:

• Gas on mainnet is often a concern for several smaller users. Especially in cases where gas costs exceed the value of token migrated, users are often hesitant to proceed. I recommend including reimbursement in the UI as a way to incentivize migration.
• The suggestion of a bi-annaul report is encouraging. I’d like to see this report include planned vs realized expenses in USD and PSP as well as expected ROI and realized ROI. Ofcourse it would help if the expectations are communicated before hand so that the delegates can effectively followup on the proposal.
• In terms of DAO faciliated allocation, I support the general suggestion of exploring various mechanisms to faciliate this spending.
  As an industry we have explored and understood the pros and cons of delegated decision making for pro-active grants (often called grants committees) Hence I believe that we should learn from this and only allocate a part of the distribution budget to an elected committiee.
• I highly encourage setting up a grants working group who can explore various allocation mechanisms and allow community members to participate in allocation mechanism which most suits their interests. Here is an exhaustive list of allocation mechanisms for such a working group to explore. The goal of this WG is to allocate the budget amongst the menu of distribution mechanisms avaliable and empower community members to facilitate execution of each of the chosen mechanisms. This approach maximizes community engagement which giving the DAO diversity of feedback on optimal spending mechanism for each use case.

[Laita]

Hi everyone,
Thank you for the valuable discussion and feedback.

We have just shared PIP-56, which we aim to put on a vote on Wednesday. As suggested, we have removed the strict allocations and made them optional instead.

Feel free to let us know your thoughts!

PIP-56: Implementation of Project Miró Roadmap and Migration

PIP-56: Implementation of Project Miró Roadmap and Migration Abstract Following prior discussions of Project Miró, this proposal confirms the new set scope for the DAO from a DEX Aggregator to an Intents-centric decentralized trading platform. PIP-56 prepares ParaSwap DAO for the new token and migration by enabling the DAO to implement the migration and allow the Foundation to initiate this process, as well as listing and other preparations for the new token. This encompasses the following, all…