Response to PIP-XX: Velora Treasury Management Proposal
I want to provide context on this proposal while disclosing an important conflict of interest.
A significant portion of my delegation comes from Avantgarde, so I will be recusing myself from the formal vote on this proposal to maintain governance integrity. This disclosure is necessary for transparency, and I believe delegates should always be clear about potential conflicts when discussing proposals.
With that disclosure made, I can share my experience working with @Avantgarde in my role at Gitcoin, where they currently manage strategic assets for our matching pool under SGTM-002. Their performance has been professional and effective - they’ve provided clear reporting, maintained conservative risk management appropriate for DAO treasuries, and been responsive to community feedback. While every DAO’s needs differ, our experience suggests they have the operational capability to handle treasury management responsibilities.
To strengthen this proposal, I’d suggest adding specific operational parameters that will help both the DAO and the Treasury Manager succeed. These could include:
- defined thresholds for what actions require DAO votes (perhaps transactions over a certain amount or % of treasury)
- explicit risk limits and portfolio allocation ranges (like maximum % in any single asset)
- performance KPIs tied to the optional performance bonus structure.
- monthly updates alongside quarterly reports would also keep delegates informed during volatile periods.
These additions would create clear operating boundaries while maintaining the flexibility needed for effective treasury management.