Thank you for laying out these three paths for Compound’s future, pretty clear breakdown, and I appreciate the clear structure you’ve provided. It’s a solid starting point for the community to dig into weighing in on the options:
- On centralizing leadership under AlphaGrowth: I get that streamlining processes is scary but to iterate fast the DAO needs more coordination. AlphaGrowth does not have the voting power for centralization. The beauty of the DAO is that the community can always vote us out if they’re not happy. Honestly, I’d challenge any major delegate who’s had issues with our services to speak up, let’s get that feedback on the table and address it head-on. Instead of community member who’s grants we blocked @cmrn, or other service providers.
- Gauntlet + Morpho collaboration idea is an interesting experiment and could work, but it’s worth noting that Gauntlet’s sitting on 370k votes now. That’s a centralized chunk of influence in its own right, just with different players. This should be also considered as implicit centralization without clear mandates.
- Establishing a DAO leadership model—this is the one we’ve been pushing for a while, right? We pitched something similar here (https://www.comp.xyz/t/alphagrowth-growth-program-organizational-structure/6186), but the DAO voted it down. Maybe it’s time to revisit that discussion? Could be the community’s sentiment has shifted, or we just need a sharper proposal to make it stick.
My best advice is to do 1 and 2 and work towards 3 one business unit at a time.
Thanks again for kicking this off, Michael. Looking forward to seeing where the conversation goes.