[ARFC] Treasury Management - auraBAL

Reading time saved: 2 minutes

5 replies, 455 views, 11 likes



A proposal to create a managed contract for Aave DAO's auraBAL holdings is being debated, with support for its security and efficiency benefits but concerns over its necessity and cost. The community's decision will follow a voting process with the outcome determining the next steps.

What is this about?

The discussion revolves around a proposal by TokenLogic, supported by MatthewGraham, DefiJesus, and Efecarranza, to create a permissioned and upgradeable contract for managing Aave DAO's auraBAL holdings. The contract would allow the shortExecutor to control the funds and assign or revoke a Guardian role, with the initial Guardian being the GHO Liquidity Committee (GLC). The contract would facilitate various functions, including minting, staking, claiming rewards, and transferring rewards to different Aave entities. The Ethereum Executor would have the power to assign the Guardian role, transfer auraBAL to the Treasury, and upgrade the contract. The proposal includes a budget request for development costs and outlines a voting process for Aave DAO members.

How is the community reacting?

The community has expressed concerns about the necessity and cost-effectiveness of the proposal. 0xkeyrock.eth, ApuMallku, and Kene_StableLab questioned whether the existing committee could handle the tasks and the justification for the requested funding. TokenLogic defended the proposal, stating the importance of the shortExecutor's control over the auraBAL position and the need for a long-term solution beyond the current SAFE setup. Lbsblockchain raised questions about the urgency of the proposal and suggested that costs could be included in the upcoming revised service provider proposal.

Why this is positive?

  • The contract would provide a more secure and long-term solution for managing the Aave DAO's auraBAL holdings.
  • It would enable the shortExecutor to efficiently control the funds and perform various functions to benefit the Treasury.

Why this is negative?

  • There are concerns about whether the proposal is necessary and whether the tasks could be managed by the existing committee without additional costs.
  • The cost-effectiveness of the proposal is being questioned, with some community members suggesting that the costs could be deferred to a future budget.

Next actions

The proposal outlined a voting process with options for Aave DAO members to vote YAE, NAE, or ABSTAIN, and the next steps are contingent on the outcome of the ARFC snapshot stage.

Posted 25 days ago

Last reply 19 days ago

Summary updated 10 days ago

Last updated 04/12 00:17