Proposal: PIP-70 - Velora Contributors Program (VCP) - Cycle 2 Renewal**
Vote: For
Rationale: We’re supportive of VCP Cycle 2 and like the direction of distinguishing between traditional delegates and extraordinary contributors. The addition of Contributor Points feels like a natural evolution, since research, integrations, content, and analytics can create real impact for Velora and deserve recognition.
At the same time, we think it could help to keep some continuity with Cycle 1. The structure worked well, stayed under budget, and gave everyone clear expectations. Keeping the tier compensation levels steady, at least for this round, would let us keep that momentum. Contributor Points could then act as a bonus layer rather than a full redesign from day one.
A pilot phase for CP in the first half of the program might be a good way to test it out. We could run it as a bonus or multiplier, then do a mid-term review to see how it plays in practice before locking it in. That would give the DAO time to gather feedback and build shared confidence in the system.
Transparency will also be important. Publishing short monthly notes on why certain contributions earned their CP scores could help set benchmarks and avoid confusion. Over time, that would build precedent and give everyone a clearer sense of what “good” looks like.
Finally, while the 30-day vesting feels reasonable, it might be worth exploring a hybrid approach that keeps some rewards liquid and some locked. That way we balance long-term alignment with the fact that delegates also have real costs to cover.
Overall, we support the renewal of this program and the direction it’s headed. With a few small adjustments around continuity, inclusivity, and transparency, VCP Cycle 2 can push Velora governance to an even higher level.
Proposal: PIP-69 - Velora Treasury Management**
Vote: For
Rationale: We think setting up a dedicated Treasury Manager is the right step for Velora. Avantgarde is a strong candidate with the right background, and we truly appreciate the contributions they have already made to the DAO. Having someone focused on the treasury will bring structure, consistency, and professional oversight to an area that is becoming increasingly important.
At the same time, we believe the role should not be appointed directly. Even a short open application process could bring in other perspectives, help benchmark costs and strategies, and show the community that we are picking the best option available. Putting all responsibility into a single entity without competition creates concentration risk, similar to holding all assets in one protocol and being more exposed if something goes wrong. Diversifying not just assets but also the management process helps protect the DAO in the long run.
We also think compensation could be better aligned. A flat hourly rate provides stability, but adding a performance-based element tied to outcomes like sustainable yield, diversification, or risk management would create stronger alignment. If the treasury grows healthier and safer under their stewardship, both the DAO and the manager benefit.
Overall, we support this proposal and trust Avantgarde to do a great job. We simply recommend two improvements: open the process, even briefly, and add performance incentives. These changes would make the framework stronger, build community trust, and ensure the treasury is managed with both professionalism and resilience.