Thank you for your comment and it’s good to see feedback on our proposal.
One of the biggest threats to any DAO is centralization risk. This is why Web3 companies, including Compound, undergo multiple audits—it’s not just a best practice but a necessity. Is it a waste of time and money? Absolutely not. Whether it’s technical risk or market risk, involving multiple independent parties ensures a more robust and collaborative approach to risk assessment. Relying on a single risk vendor introduces a clear centralization risk—any miscalculation of parameters or technical oversight by that vendor could lead to severe security vulnerabilities.
At Chainrisk, we’ve openly shared our methodologies for navigating market risks, and it’s evident that our approach differs significantly from Gauntlet’s. These differences naturally lead to varied risk recommendations. Having a second opinion fosters a more engaged and informed discussion on the governance forum, something that is often lacking due to Compound’s reliance on a single risk provider. By introducing multiple perspectives, the Compound community can better understand risk, engage in meaningful discourse, and ultimately choose the recommendations that best align with the majority DAO sentiment.
Compound V3 is one of the largest lending protocols in DeFi, managing nearly $2.7 billion in TVL. If we all share the goal of seeing Compound succeed, innovation must continue. To stay ahead of competitors, we should focus on collaboration rather than internal conflicts, working together for the DAO’s best interests. By striving to enhance the quality of our contributions, we can provide the most value to the DAO. Having two risk vendors will drive healthy competition, pushing both to exceed their limits—ultimately benefiting Compound through more rigorous and refined risk assessments.
First of all, it is really disheartening for us to see how easily you have framed this sentence. As you have mentioned you are speaking as a concerned Compound community member ( not on behalf of Gauntlet), Sonic came to Aave and Compound, actually the first proposal was launched on Compound Forum close to 3 weeks before it was done on Aave. On Aave, they got the market analysis within 2-3 days from both their risk vendors. After 2 months, Gauntlet came up with recs which weren’t updated in another 3 weeks after which Sonic left the chat.
Here’s their comments on why Sonic didn’t proceed with the deployment.
https://www.comp.xyz/t/governance-proposal-deployment-of-compound-iii-on-sonic/6076/16
Even after 10 days, there’s not a single post from Gauntlet team clarifying what happened and why the DAO lost such a great opportunity to capitalise on ( within one week of its launch on Sonic, there’s $130M TVL on Aave ). If Sonic is to become the go-to-chain this season, it’s reasonable to assume this is a loss of $500M TVL on Compound.
This circles back to my first point why having two risk vendors is ‘not a waste of money and time’.
Also, Sonic deployment is not a one-off case. Citing some examples here -
- For Ronin Deployment, the first proposal came on Dec 21, and the recs were provided on Feb 8.
- Adding cmETH on Mantle, the proposal came on Dec 23, the recs were provided on Feb 1.
- Adding SKY as collateral, the proposal came on Dec 13, the recs were provided on Jan 16.
- Add Collateral wSuperOETHb, the proposal came on Sept 26, the recs were provided on Dec 6.
- Add wOETH Market on Ethereum, the proposal came on Jun 18, the recs were given on Aug 24.
We can keep writing here, but the average turnaround time for Gauntlet has been close to 6-8 weeks. We are proposing to cut that down to 2 weeks. The key importance to note here is in an industry where things move so fast, moving this slow will drive away interests from other protocols about potential collaboration and eventually kill the protocol.
As suggested by @allthecolours, we were and we still are open to discussing on how Chainrisk and Gauntlet can work together. We want the greater good of the DAO above everything and want to see Compound win. Though as @jmo correctly stated, it’ll be a uphill battle for us given, Gauntlet controls 89% of the Quorum and decides to vote against.
We would appreciate genuine feedback/criticism from @jmo and the other delegates. Thank you for your active participation in our proposal.
Regards
Team Chainrisk