PIP-XX - ParaSwap Growth Working Group Outcome - Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and Velora Growth Committee (VGC)

Governance Proposals
,
1

PIP-XX - ParaSwap Growth Working Group Outcome - Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and Velora Growth Committee (VGC)

Abstract

This proposal is the result and final output of the PGWG’s work over the past two months. It introduces the Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and the Velora Growth Committee (VGC) as a permanent body within the DAO, dedicated to identifying and promoting initiatives that contribute to Velora’s growth.

Goals & Review

The DAO formed the PGWG composed by @citizen42, @avantgarde, @pgov, @aranadigital and @seedgov to carry out a clear and specific mandate:

Guided by this mandate and as a final deliverable, we present the following proposal, which aims to fulfill the assigned task by establishing the appropriate structure and framework to carry out growth initiatives.

1. Introduction

The Velora DAO is committed to fostering protocol growth through a structured and scalable approach. To achieve this, we introduce the Velora Growth Framework (VGF), which establishes a Growth Committee responsible for executing targeted initiatives. This framework ensures that DAO-led growth efforts remain transparent, results-driven, and adaptable to evolving ecosystem needs.

The ParaSwap/Velora Growth Working Group (PGWG) is responsible for crafting this framework and may only incorporate community feedback during the designated feedback period, in line with the life cycle guidelines. Once the framework is approved, the working group is dissolved, and the DAO proceeds to elect the three members of the Velora Growth Committee (VGC), who will execute initiatives within this structured governance model.

2. Growth Framework Overview

The Velora Growth Framework (VGF) introduces a structured governance model that defines:

  • The creation, structure, and responsibilities of the Velora Growth Committee.
  • Onboarding and offboarding processes for Growth Committee members.
  • Operational cadence and accountability to ensure transparency.
  • Budgeting, compensation, and resource allocation to drive effective execution.
  • Expansion modules for future integrations, partnerships, and initiatives.

This framework serves as the foundation for transparent DAO-driven growth, with mechanisms to scale or pivot based on performance and ecosystem dynamics.

3. Scope & Responsibilities

The Velora Growth Committee focuses on the following core areas:

3.1 Partnerships & Integrations

  • Identifying and onboarding strategic partners (DeFi protocols, LST providers, L2 ecosystems).
  • Exploring new integrations that enhance Velora’s aggregator capabilities.
  • Negotiating co-marketing and incentive programs with ecosystem partners.
  • Representing Velora in DAO governance forums of relevant protocols.
  • New token integrations.

3.2 Business Development

  • Expanding Velora’s presence within intent-based products, cross-chain trading, and DeFi partnerships.
  • Engaging with grantees and monitoring ecosystem grant programs relevant to Velora.
  • Serve as an execution layer for DAO-led initiatives tied to strategic efforts. Growth Committee can help catalyse traction around it, rallying community awareness, supporting integrations and proposing resource allocations to accelerate adoption.

3.3 Marketing & Community Engagement

  • Creating educational content (Blog posts, social media campaigns, AMAs).
  • Executing growth-focused campaigns.
  • Expanding ParaSwap’s brand presence through community-driven initiatives.

3.4 Mandate Alignment with Foundation & Laita

The Growth Committee is designed to complement the ongoing efforts of the Foundation and Laita. While the Foundation may continue to lead on higher-complexity initiatives (such as new chain deployments or business development involving legal and technical infrastructure) the Velora Growth Committee is positioned to deliver lighter, high-leverage initiatives. These may include API-level distribution deals, DAO-to-DAO collaborations, or facilitating integrations with minimal overhead.

This structure ensures a clear division of focus, enabling the DAO to act nimbly on timely growth opportunities, such as partnerships with DefiLlama or Oku, without duplicating or conflicting with the Foundation’s mandate.

The VGC will maintain open and ongoing communication with Laita and the Foundation, consulting them for advice and involving them in working meetings to ensure alignment and shared objectives among all parties.

4. Expansion & Future Modules

The Velora Growth Framework is designed for modular expansion. Additional governance modules may be introduced to refine or extend:

  • Onboarding & Offboarding Processes: Standardises the selection, training, and transition of Growth Committee members.
  • Committee Funds & Multisig Security: Defines funds operations, signer roles, and multisig policies.
  • Growth Incentive Mechanisms: Defines how the DAO rewards contributors and partners through grants, bounties, incentive and liquidity programs.

These modules can be developed and maintained by the Velora Growth Committee, ensuring the framework remains dynamic and aligned with DAO objectives.

5. Velora Growth Committee (VGC) Composition and Governance

5.1 Composition & Selection Process

The Velora Growth Committee (VGC) will be composed of 5 members:

  • One of the five seats will be permanently allocated to the individual holding the Treasury Manager role, given the importance of their expertise in budgetary matters and the impact of the Committee’s work on DAO funds. This member provides ongoing analysis, evaluation, and strategic advice on treasury health.
    • Note: Initially, this seat will be held by @Avantgarde, who previously served on the PGWG and brings the required experience, skills, and a strong track record in supporting the DAO’s treasury initiatives.
  • One permanent seat will be allocated to the Governance Task Force, given their role in coordinating across DAO structures and stakeholders. The GTF will act as a liaison but will not receive additional compensation for their participation on the Velora Growth Committee.
    • Note: This seat is subject to the approval of the proposal currently being discussed in the forum. If the proposal is approved, this seat will initially be held by @seedgov.
  • The remaining 3 members will be selected through a structured onboarding process governed by the VGF’s Membership Module.

5.2 Membership Module: Onboarding & Selection

  1. Candidate Submission: Interested applicants submit proposals on the DAO forum, detailing their expertise, vision, and motivation. A 7-day application period is hereby opened for those interested - individuals or organisations - in being part of the VGC.

    Application template example:

    • DAO-recognized Name:
    • Individual or Organization?:
    • Time Zone:
    • Background and/or skills:
    • What can you contribute to the Velora Growth Committee?
    • What is your motivation for applying to this working group? (max 3 sentences):
    • List your past or current association, history, role and contributions to the ParaSwap/Velora protocol or DAO:
    • Briefly describe any other DAO working groups or teams in which you currently participate or have participated in the past:
    • Conflict of Interest Declaration:

  2. Community Review: A discussion period allows DAO members to evaluate candidates, ask questions, and provide feedback before moving to the voting phase.

  3. DAO Voting: A Snapshot vote is conducted where voters select members using a weighted voting system.

  4. Onboarding & Knowledge Transfer: Elected members undergo an onboarding process, including:

    • A review of current partnerships, growth initiatives, and key performance indicators (KPIs).

5.3 Term Duration & Offboarding

Each Growth Committee term lasts 6 months. Upon completion:

  • A performance review is conducted based on predefined KPIs.
  • The DAO votes on whether to renew, modify, or replace the committee structure.
  • If a member resigns or is removed mid-term, a replacement process is triggered following the Onboarding section.

5.4 Governance & Decision-Making

The Velora Growth Committee operates autonomously within its defined scope but remains accountable to the DAO through:

  • Regular updates on fund allocation, partnerships, and key results.
  • A 6-month final impact report to assess effectiveness.
  • Forum discussions where token holders can provide input and feedback.
  • If there is a formal request regarding a process, the committee has 72 hours to respond.

6. Velora Growth Committee Multisig

To ensure security and accountability, the Velora Growth Committee operates a multisig wallet with:

  • 5 signers (committee members & DAO-aligned security overseers).
  • A 3/5 threshold for fund movements.

7. Timeline & Key Milestones

Phase 1: DAO Approval & Member Selection

  • Snapshot vote to approve framework and open Velora Growth Committee applications.
  • Selection of Velora Growth Committee members by weighted Snapshot vote.

Phase 2: Onboarding & Execution (Months 1-6)

  • Committee onboarded & multisig setup.
  • Execution of growth initiatives.
  • Regular updates to the DAO including periodic interactions.

Phase 3: Review & Iteration (Month 6+)

  • Final Growth Report published.
  • DAO votes on continuation, modification, or dissolution of the Growth Committee.
  • Framework iteration based on learnings.

8. Budget & Compensation

The Velora Growth Committee follows a structured budget model to ensure predictable spending while maintaining flexibility.

  • Total Budget Pool: The committee will propose a 6-month budget based on projected needs, subject to DAO approval. This budget covers compensation and operational costs.
  • Budget Adjustments: If unforeseen needs arise, the committee may propose mid-term adjustments, subject to DAO approval.
  • Compensation Structure: Members are compensated at $75/hour, with a maximum of 10 billable hours per week to control costs and ensure fair workload distribution.
  • Unused Funds: Any unspent budget at the end of the term reverts to the DAO treasury
  • Retroactive Payments: Payments are made every 3 months, based on verified work logs and DAO approval.

Below is the allocation logic for the 6‑month (26‑week) compensation structure proposed for the VGF. It uses the same assumptions outlined above: a $75/hour compensation rate, with a maximum of 10 hours/week per member. The objective is to ensure a fair workload distribution and transparent cost management.

Allocation Logic Calculation Result
Hourly Rate (Compensation) $75/hour $75/hour
Weekly Max Billable Hours (per Member) 10 hours/week 10 hours/week
Weekly Budget (1 Member) $75 × 10 hours $750/week
Weekly Budget (4 Members) $750/week × 4 $3,000/week
6‑Month (26 Weeks) Budget (for 4 Members combined) $3,000/week × 26 weeks $78,000

  • Billing and Token: VGC members will receive compensation in PSP/New Token. The number of tokens allocated for disbursement will be determined by calculating a 7-day TWAP, using data from the 7-day prior to the disbursement date.

    • Token historical price data can be gathered from publicly available sources like CoinGecko - ParaSwap USD.
    • If payment is scheduled for a given day, the token price for that day can be estimated by averaging the 7 Day Range. This method ensures transparent and consistent valuation based on verifiable data.

  • Invoicing Hub: If the proposal passes, this thread can also serve as a shared hub for members to submit invoices detailing billed hours. We suggest to follow the template format below when posting:

    Name:

    Role:

    Rate: $Hourly Rate/h

    PSP/New Token TWAP Price:

    Week Start Week End Hours Total (USD)
    MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY X $Amount
    MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY X $Amount
    MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY X $Amount
    Total Hs: Total $:
    Token Amount: Total USD / TWAP Price of PSP

    Payment Address:

9. Conclusion

The Velora Growth Committee introduces a lean, DAO-native structure to support scalable, transparent growth. Operating within a clear governance framework and reporting process, the committee enables the DAO to pursue high-impact initiatives without heavy coordination overhead.

By complementing existing centralized teams, the committee helps fill strategic gaps where foundation resources may not be deployed, focusing on grassroots growth efforts like Velora adoption and lightweight ecosystem integrations. This structure empowers the DAO to mobilize aligned contributors and drive expansion with accountability and efficiency.

That said, once this framework is rejected or approved, the PWGW will be dissolved, and the next steps will follow.

10. Next Steps

  1. Community Discussion & Refinement - 7-day period + 2-day frozen period
  2. Snapshot Vote on Framework Approval - if approved:
  3. Velora Growth Committee Applications Open - 7-day application period
  4. Applicant community review
  5. Snapshot Vote (weighted voting system) for Member Selection & Onboarding
  6. Execution of the 6-Month Trial Growth Program
  7. Final Review & DAO Decision on Continuation - 6 months after approval of the proposal and members are selected.

Means

This proposal does not require any additional Velora, external product or development.

Implementation Overview

We do not foresee any potential negative outcome of the present proposal and it is not expected for the DAO to derive any associated implementation action.

Time of Implementation

The VGC is envisioned as a permanent structure, with its initial term lasting 6 months from the approval of the proposal and the selection of its members. All other timelines are outlined within the proposal.

Budget

The budget for the Velora Growth Committee (VGC) is outlined in section '8. Budget & Compensation’. Additionally, this proposal includes retroactive compensation for the ParaSwap Growth Working Group (PGWG) members who developed this framework, as announced in the original forum post.

Retroactive Payment for PGWG Members

Payments will be made in PSP/New Token using the TWAP valuation method from section 8. Disbursement will occur within one month from the approval date of this proposed framework, if approved. Specific amounts are detailed above:

Member Hours Worked Rate Total USD PSP Price Total PSP
Arana 8 75 600 TBD TBD
Avantgarde 16 75 1200 TBD TBD
Citizen 16 75 1200 TBD TBD
PGov 8 75 600 TBD TBD

Rate: $75/h

PSP 7-Day TWAP Price: TBD Day of disbursement.

Address: All payments will be executed by the GovCo and send to each member’s delegation address.

Note: SeedGov is currently undergoing a transition to become the Governance Task Force and will be compensated for the role if approved, hence they are exempt from this disbursement.

Risk Assessment

We understand that the proposal has its drawbacks, however, the benefits and positive impact on the broader community, ecosystem, and protocol lie in its potential to establish a dedicated structure focused on identifying and executing growth-oriented initiatives. This would complement and support the ongoing efforts led by the Foundation and Laita.

3 Likes
2

The establishment of the VGF and the Velora Growth Committee represents a significant advancement for the DAO. By instituting a dedicated body focused on strategic partnerships, business development, and community engagement, the DAO is well-positioned to enhance its growth initiatives. This structured approach ensures that efforts are not only systematic but also aligned with the broader objectives of the DAO.

The framework’s emphasis on transparency and accountability is commendable. By defining clear processes for onboarding and offboarding committee members, as well as establishing operational cadences, the framework promotes a culture of responsibility. Moreover, the inclusion of budgeting and compensation guidelines ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, driving effective execution of growth initiatives.

Furthermore, the VGC’s focus on expanding Velora’s presence through strategic partnerships and integrations is crucial in today’s rapidly evolving DeFi landscape. By actively engaging with potential partners and exploring new integrations, the committee can enhance Velora’s aggregator capabilities and foster a more robust ecosystem.

From our experience working with the team the last few weeks on the preliminary working group, they have been professional, clear, and transparent. We are confident this will continue in the future.

1 Like
3

We’re glad to have taken part in helping set the foundation for the new VGC. ParaSwap’s recent evolution into Velora and corresponding initiatives from Laita & the Foundation like Project Miró should be nicely accompanied with the VGC. The main benefit of this team is that it unites multiple external parties to provide additional perspective and boots on the ground to the full-time Velora teams. The PGWG was composed of members that are privy to the operational nature of multiple other DAOs and ecosystems. This framework is set up such that input from external teams involved in multiple ecosystems are able to facilitate symbiotic relationships between Velora and different groups, even if it’s as simple as convincing another DAO to route its treasury management activity via Velora. These types of initiatives are often best conducted by members of those DAOs as opposed to a protocol’s core team, hence the benefit of external teams.

Excited to hear what others think.

2 Likes
4

Thank you for sharing the update from the ParaSwap Growth Working Group (PGWG). The proposal outlines a robust framework for the Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and Velora Growth Committee (VGC), but I have a few questions and suggestions to ensure clarity and alignment with the DAO’s goals.

First, could you clarify the division of responsibilities? Specifically:

  1. Which tasks will be fully transitioned from the ParaSwap Foundation and Labs team to the VGC?

  2. Which responsibilities will be shared between the VGC and existing teams?

  3. Are there any tasks where the VGC will operate in parallel with the Foundation or Labs, potentially duplicating efforts?

Understanding this breakdown is critical to avoiding overlap, ensuring efficient resource allocation, and maintaining accountability within the DAO’s structure.

Second, the responsibilities outlined—such as strategic growth planning, community engagement, and execution of partnerships—require specialized skills and proven expertise. For the proposed permanent members of the VGC, could you provide more details about their past performance in these areas?
Transparency here would help the community assess whether the candidates have the necessary experience to deliver results effectively. For example, metrics or case studies showcasing their prior success in similar roles would build confidence in their ability to execute.

Finally, I’d like to share a broader concern about the proposed election process for VGC members. While elections are valuable for trust-based roles, the tasks outlined in this proposal seem heavily skill-dependent. Selecting candidates based on popularity or community trust alone risks prioritizing charisma over competence, which could undermine the VGF’s objectives. Instead, I propose a merit-based Request for Proposal (RFP) process to ensure the most qualified individuals or teams are chosen. Here’s a suggested approach:

  1. Identify tasks that cannot be effectively handled by the existing Foundation or Labs teams, justifying the need for the VGC.

  2. Develop a transparent, points-based evaluation system to assess candidates or service providers based on their skills, experience, and track record.

  3. Allow the community to vote on a shortlist of qualified candidates or providers who meet these criteria, balancing merit with democratic input.

This RFP approach would prioritize expertise while maintaining community involvement, ensuring that the VGC is equipped to drive Velora’s growth efficiently. I’m excited about the potential of the VGF and VGC to accelerate Velora’s growth, but I think these adjustments could make the process more transparent and effective.

1 Like
5

Thanks for this proposal — I appreciate the structure and direction it’s bringing. I’d like to raise a few questions and reflections based on the framework, especially with an eye toward ensuring coordination and accountability between DAO-led and core team efforts.

First, I want to echo and expand on @jengajojo_daoplomats’s earlier point. In previous discussions, I asked about the structure of ParaSwap/Foundation team members in Velora’s Delegates Group. The purpose was to gain a broader perspective on their existing Marketing and BD structures, and to explore how we can better align their ongoing efforts with the VGC’s mandate — ultimately aiming for stronger outcomes through coordination.

:red_question_mark: Benchmarking

In the PGWG’s original mandate, you mentioned:

Benchmarking: Research and analyse what is being done in other DAOs on growth and marketing.

My key question here is:
Have there been any successful initiatives in other DAOs where similar frameworks (like growth committees) have clearly and directly contributed to protocol growth?

  • Has the PGWG conducted or documented research on such examples?
  • Or are we Experimenting this new Initiative ?

Would appreciate any context or examples that helped shape the proposal.

:bar_chart: Performance Measurement & Attribution

Assuming that Laita Labs and the Foundation are already executing on their own Marketing and BD strategies, how will we measure the impact of the VGC specifically?

  • What metrics or structures will be in place to track performance and assign credit where it’s due?

This kind of clarity is key to both transparency and accountability.

:compass: Core Teams vs DAO Execution

While I support the creation of this framework and the formation of a growth committee, I want to stress that in many successful ecosystems, the majority of growth execution typically comes from the core contributors — those who are financially and professionally incentivized to deliver long-term impact.

That’s why I’d like to request more information from Laita Labs and the Foundation on:

  • Who currently handles Marketing and BD on their side?
  • What is the internal structure of those teams (e.g., team size, roles, mandates)?
  • How do they envision collaborating with the VGC?

This transparency would help the DAO understand who is driving what, and how best to support it — especially if we want the VGC to amplify, not duplicate, existing efforts.

Thanks again — I’m generally in favor of the framework, and I look forward to more details around benchmarking, performance tracking, and the structure of core contributors working on growth.

4 Likes
6

Good to see the DAO focusing on growth.

Just as I am replying to this comment, Uniswap is voting on BSL license model to push Uniswap to ANY CHAIN POSSIBLE by giving BSL licenses as widely as possible for incentives. They said that the innovation moat is hard to maintain.

To be honest, even Uniswap is struggling with the Hooks promotion and now Velora is not just a DEX aggregator but a platform; we need a serious and aggressive growth strategy.

Though I’m risking a conflict of interest as a delegate, I can propose collaborating with the new VGC. We could discuss partnering with my DeFi creator studio, Pink Brains, to develop educational content on X.

KOL educational content on X might help achieve some of our goals, but the decision ultimately rests with the new VGC.

1 Like
7

Hey frens, I’d like to add a few thoughts in support of the Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and Committee (VGC). I’ve been deeply involved in shaping the (P)VGWG’s efforts over the last few months and I’m excited to see the VGF and VGC come to life. Now to chime in on few mentions in the comments and to complement a soon to follow official answer let me share a few thoughts:

  1. Complements Existing Teams
    The VGC is designed to work alongside, not against, Laita, the Foundation, or other service providers. We’ve seen how crucial it is to avoid duplicating ongoing BD/marketing efforts, so rest assured the committee will act as a nimble, DAO-led partner for smaller yet high-leverage initiatives.

  2. Benchmarking from Other DAOs
    During our PGWG mandate, we researched how growth-focused committees operate in various DeFi ecosystems. While many are still experimenting, we’ve gleaned enough insights to believe a DAO-controlled group can fill strategic gaps when collaborating closely with core teams. @SEEDGov will be sharing more details on these references shortly to help everyone understand the rationale.

  3. Openness to Suggestions
    I appreciate the comments from folks like @jengajojo_daoplomats , @Mehdi and all. The VGC will need to articulate clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure its unique contributions, especially if Laita and the Foundation already have some marketing and/or BD tasks covered. We have agreed among all contributors that we’ll keep refining this aspect to ensure transparent performance tracking.

  4. No Conflict for Collaboration
    @Ignas raised little concerns about conflicts of interest if external delegates partner with the VGC. In my view, synergy with outside contributors, like Pink Brains for KOL/educational content, could really strengthen Velora’s presence, provided we maintain open communication around any potential overlaps. I’m all for bridging great ideas, and I invite anyone interested to speak up or @Ignas to kindly apply to the committee once all feedback from community is acknowledged, your insight would be valuable and definitely desired.

Lastly, I’m personally looking forward to continuing my involvement as we transition from PGWG deliverables into a fully-fledged Growth Committee era. I believe this marks a crucial step in Velora’s evolution and as always I’m here to help answer questions or explore new collaborations that push us toward a more robust, user-centric ecosystem. Velora! no speed limits, no brakes, full throttle!

3 Likes
8

Thank you for submitting this proposal @SEEDGov ! I believe it makes sense for the DAO to support the Foundation and Laita Labs with their BD efforts. Moreover with the current market conditions it is in my opinion the perfect time to create long lasting synergies with real builders of the Ecosystem.

Following @Mehdi’s comment on KPIs, I’d appreciate clarification on the committee’s strategic goals and concrete examples of successful BD activities that are qualified as “lighter, high leverage initiatives”.

For instance:

  • Does success involve native integrations of Velora into DeFi protocols, similar to the recent Hermes Protocol integration? Is the focus on expanding Velora’s multichain strategy? ( I guess these two would be more with Laita Labs ?)
  • Or does it prioritize increasing adoption of Velora Super Hooks by forming partnerships with specific projects?
  • Can we have some more details about those examples you mentionned, what they could look like concretely:

These may include API-level distribution deals, DAO-to-DAO collaborations, or facilitating integrations with minimal overhead.

Defining one or multiple Strategic Goals for the VGC before the vote would provide delegates with greater clarity on the committee’s purpose and tasks, ensuring no overlap with the Foundation or Laita Labs.

1 Like
9

We would like to add a few comments to those already made by PGov, AranaDigital and Citizen42, from which we understand that some of the questions raised were answered in those posts.

These questions will be easier to answer once the Velora Growth Committee is up and running, but here’s a general idea for now: the VGC isn’t taking over specific tasks from the Foundation or Labs—instead, it’s meant to drive growth initiatives that members believe can benefit both the DAO and the protocol. Some responsibilities may naturally overlap, especially around areas like Velora adoption and ecosystem integrations, but the intention is to complement existing efforts, not duplicate them. The Foundation and Laita are expected to stay focused on their own roadmaps following the rebrand, and open communication with the VGC is already a shared priority to help everything stay aligned.

The permanent roles on the VGC are reserved for a Treasury Manager -TM- and the Governance Task Force -GTF-, not for Avantgarde or SEED as organizations. That said, Avantgarde is currently the most suitable candidate for the TM role, given its track record and experience not only in governance but also as a crypto asset manager company they are. As for the GTF seat, it’s still undecided, SEED’s proposal to take on that role is currently in snapshot voting period.
And to be clear, like the proposal said the TM is expected to act as an advisor and lead on matters related to treasury and asset management proposals. Similarly, the GTF’s role is expected to focus more on ensuring the VGC runs effectively and stays aligned with its goals.

In order to make this clear, the selection process presented, as well as the proposed template, establishes that the candidates who apply must provide information about their background and/or skills, and also provides for a period of review of the applications (during which questions can even be made to the applicants), so that the community can make its decision and vote for the candidates who it feels are best prepared and qualified to take on the role. It is further clarified that current Velora/ParaSwap members, or even outsiders such as growth service providers who may be interested, can apply. It will then be up to the vote of the PSPs to select the candidates they feel are best qualified or best able to carry out the role.

As @citizen42 said:

Expanding on this topic, the PGWG conducted the following research:

None of these models were copied or imitated, but rather influenced the creation of this proposal adapted to the reality and needs of Velora.

In line with the above, we have not proposed to allocate a budget to the VGC in advance, but rather that if the proposal is approved and all members are involved, joint or complementary growth strategies can be established with Laita and the Foundation, and funds can only be requested when necessary according to a plan specifically developed for this purpose and subject to DAO approval.

As stated in the proposal, the VGC should maintain fluid communication with Laita and the Foundation to ensure proper alignment and not overlap but complement each other to achieve shared objectives.

4 Likes
10

Thanks for this proposal @SEEDGov. We’re generally supportive of the VGF and VGC concept. Broadly, the intent to professionalize and focus the DAO’s growth efforts is well-founded. We appreciate the clear definition of a Growth Framework (VGF) – setting out the mandate, KPIs, and budget guardrails – and a dedicated Committee (VGC) to execute within that framework. This separation of “framework” and “committee” suggests that we’ll have a transparent strategy and an accountable team to carry it out. Looking at other DAO growth systems, we’ve seen a few best practices stand out again and again: clear mandates, defined budgets, periodic accountability, and openness to iteration. Velora’s Growth Framework appears to embrace these, and we’re glad the proposal was informed by broad research.

It’s important that we clearly delineate the VGC’s scope relative to the Foundation/Laita’s ongoing growth efforts. We saw the comments that “the VGC isn’t taking over specific tasks from the Foundation or Labs” and “Some responsibilities may naturally overlap… but the intention is to complement existing efforts, not duplicate them.” We think it would be valuable to precisely communicate the exact avenues that VGC is operating in relative to the other entities once things are established so we can see the Growth Committee’s direct impact.

Given that we strongly support SEEDGov and we voted in favor of PIP-62, it makes sense for us to support the wider proposal here.

11

Thanks again to @SEEDGov for spearheading the working group as well as this proposal. It was a pleasure to be involved and work with all the members of the WG. Great avenue for thoughtful discussions and also glad to see additional ideas being born out of the WG that various contributors are now exploring. As we’ve been involved in crafting this proposal, we don’t have much feedback to add, but want to thank all the delegates who’ve come on here to share their thoughts.

As many of you have pointed out, alignment is key. Introducing a new committee requires solid communication channels to avoid friction or duplicated efforts with the Foundation/Laita in practice. Hence, we invited @0xYtocin to sit on the VGC as a “passive” member to ensure constant alignment and two-way comms, which we believe should suffice.

Setting KPIs can be tricky for this sort of mandate, so we’d welcome further discussion on the issue. Part of the idea is to give this group of dedicated core contributors a vehicle to push relevant initiatives that can help grow Velora, and retroactively get rewarded for doing so. Hence, we may not want to impose boundaries that are overly restrictive when it comes to the focus areas. These initiatives obviously need to be relevant, and we shouldn’t accept hours being used for whatever. Given that there’s some subjective judgement involved in evaluating work for retro payments, it’ll be important also for VGC members to actively communicate with delegates to promote also broader alignment within the DAO.

:ox:

3 Likes
12

:thread: Lessons from DAO-Led Growth Programs — Informing the VGC Proposal

In light of the Velora Growth Framework (VGF) and Velora Growth Committee (VGC) proposal, I reviewed similar growth and marketing initiatives from other DAOs to better understand what has worked — and what hasn’t. Below is a concise comparison of achievements and challenges, which may help shape expectations and structure for the VGC.

:bar_chart: Comparative Summary — DAO Growth Programs

:purple_circle: Compound – Growth Program (AlphaGrowth)

:white_check_mark: Achievements:

  • Developed business development (BD) pipeline and integrations
  • Co-marketing efforts raised awareness
  • Received strong community support
  • Program extended after initial success

:warning: Challenges:

  • Difficult to attribute protocol growth directly to program
  • Misalignment with Compound Foundation and internal priorities
  • Short-term funding cycles limited continuity

:green_circle: Threshold Network – Marketing Guild

:white_check_mark: Achievements:

  • Ran educational and community campaigns
  • Contributed to protocol visibility
  • Helped maintain community momentum during transitions

:warning: Challenges:

  • Limited contributor bandwidth
  • Role confusion between execution and oversight
  • Required restructuring due to inefficiency

:blue_circle: Threshold Network – Integrations Guild

:white_check_mark: Achievements:

  • Facilitated integrations (e.g., Gitcoin, Dappnode)
  • Managed bug bounties and onboarding support
  • Supported technical infrastructure (e.g., subgraphs)

:warning: Challenges:

  • Difficulty scaling contributor team
  • Lack of consistent performance metrics
  • Frequent governance overhead and re-orgs

:red_circle: MakerDAO – Growth Core Unit (GRO-001)

:white_check_mark: Achievements:

  • Helped onboard Real World Asset (RWA) partners
  • Ran regional expansion efforts (e.g., LatAm, Asia)
  • Supported global business development and partnerships

:warning: Challenges:

  • High operational cost and overhead
  • Coordination issues between Core Units
  • Complex internal structure slowed down initiatives

:black_circle: Uniswap – Growth Program (RFC stage)

:white_check_mark: Achievements:

  • No measurable outcomes yet (still in planning/RFC phase)

:warning: Challenges:

  • Still unimplemented
  • No execution or results to evaluate yet

:repeat_button: What Worked Across DAOs

  • :white_check_mark: Dedicated BD and integrations teams with clear pipelines
  • :white_check_mark: Localized marketing and regional expansion efforts
  • :white_check_mark: Early community engagement and structured governance
  • :white_check_mark: Trial periods with extensions based on feedback

:triangular_flag: What Didn’t Work (Common Pitfalls

  • :cross_mark: Difficulty attributing growth to DAO-led efforts
  • :cross_mark: Misalignment with core contributors (foundation/labs)
  • :cross_mark: Lack of performance metrics and outcome tracking
  • :cross_mark: Role confusion: oversight vs execution
  • :cross_mark: Heavy governance load (elections, restructures, short mandates)

:brain: Recommendations for Velora

If the VGC is to succeed where others struggled, I suggest we:

  1. Ensure deep collaboration with Laita Labs/Foundation from day one.
  2. Separate execution (operators) from oversight (committee).
  3. Establish clear KPIs and reporting standards tied to protocol goals.
  4. Use multi-month mandates with optional extensions to reduce churn.
  5. Focus on complementing, not duplicating, core team efforts.

Final Thoughts

I’ve tried to analyze the outcomes of the referenced DAO growth programs with the help of AI, and I’ve shared the results above. As I mentioned in my initial comments, I remain cautious — we haven’t seen many examples of such programs clearly driving protocol growth, especially with well-documented KPI impact. (I would appreciate it if any clear KPI data could be shared.)

That said, this doesn’t mean success isn’t possible — quite the opposite. I’m supportive of the VGC and its proposed efforts. Why?

  • We can learn from past programs to achieve better results that directly impact protocol growth and revenue.
  • Some committee members now bring stronger qualifications and more experience.
  • Paraswap/VeloraDEX’s marketing needs are still underserved, making the case for VGC more evident.
  • The budgeting is fair, and the DAO retains the flexibility to adjust or discontinue funding if the efforts don’t prove beneficial.
  • There is clear alignment between the Paraswap/VeloraDEX community, core team, and delegators — all are willing to collaborate toward making this a successful initiative.
1 Like