Dao Ops Concerns + The pressing need for a secondary risk manager

[Sudipan_Chainrisk]

We have raised multiple concerns around this in the Morpho <> Compound thread that you can find here. Happy to discuss in more details moving forward.

@allthecolors

Although the points raised by Chainrisk are clearly self-serving (nothing wrong with that), I share some of their concerns about the Compound x Morpho x Polygon proposal:

(1) Given Gauntlet’s indirect interests in this proposal and their significant share of tokens actively used in governance, it would be preferable for them to abstain on this proposal. They have not disclosed any direct compensation for it: provided that’s true, I don’t view their vote as a serious conflict of interest. If they were receiving direct, undisclosed compensation from Polygon, Morpho, or another third party to bring this proposal to the DAO, that would represent a severe conflict of interest that would shake my confidence in their intentions. I trust that this is not the case and expect them to disclose any such conflict the DAO ASAP if not, especially given their decision to actively vote on this proposal.

Thanks for clarifying this point. Would love to contact them and get their views on our proposal publically on the forum.

@allthecolors

(2a) She256 is a good actor non-profit organization promoting inclusion in DeFi and an early recipient of a large delegation from a16z, IIRC. Although their online presence has been muted recently relative to 2021-2022, they do have a recently established Delegate Platform and I look forward to an increase in their participation in Compound governance.

Thanks for detailing this out. No transparency here again. Would request @Gauntlet to clarify this ASAP. And yes the huge chunk is concerning.

@allthecolors

(2b) The address 0x7B3c…cc33 has no ENS, but Etherscan shows it to be a Gnosis Safe used primarily for voting with mattdobel.eth and inkymaze.eth as addresses that have executed txs on it, strongly suggesting that 0x7B3c…cc33 is, practically speaking, also @Gauntlet . This is concerning, as together Gauntlet’s two addresses represent 89% of quorum. At a minimum, I would strongly recommend Gauntlet attach an ENS to this address to avoid the perception that they are hoping to mask the identity of this address in on-chain governance.

Well this is exactly what we are proposing - While on one end Gauntlet handles the existing comets on V3 and the Morpho <> Compound Vaults, Chainrisk is here to support on new comet deployments and the development of Sandbox. This will solve for 3 things -

1. No Conflict of Interest within the DAO moving forward.
2. Faster recommendations and Faster deployment cycles to foster healthy relationships with partner protocols and Chains.
3. A bit more aggressive parameters ( while not compromising on the Risks ) to bring more retail and institutional eyeballs which are right now either going to AAVE or our recent DAO partner - Morpho.

For having detailed discussions we propose 3 things -

1. A healthy, open and transparent discussion on this thread followed by a snapshot of temp check.
2. A deeper discussion on the next community call.
3. A one-on-one deeper discussion with us (The TL,DR of which shall be transparently posted on this thread so that everyone is on the same page). Inviting Gauntlet and all other delegates to schedule a call here - Calendly

@allthecolors

Those concerns aside, it is difficult to see Compound moving forward with two risk managers when Gauntlet has taken such a strong stance against distributing these responsibilities. I understand some of their arguments against it, such as the impracticality of having different risk management of assets within the same Comet. However, I believe strongly that there are ways for multiple risk management teams to divide responsibilities (e.g. by Comet) that Gauntlet has shown a strong resistance to even discussing.

I would prefer for Gauntlet and ChainRisk to engage in a good-faith discussion about how they could coordinate to apply their differing strengths to address the needs of different aspects of the growing Compound ecosystem (e.g. ChainRisk for move-fast break-things partnerships like Sonic and Sandbox, Gauntlet for management of core Comets and for any new initiatives like the Morpho x Polygon arrangement that they wish to bring to the table). But if one party refuses to talk to the other, I see nothing but a dead end where the DAO accepts Gauntlet’s shortcomings out of a preference for the simplicity of having a single risk manager.