It’s important for proposals to allow adequate time for discussion before being submitted, and the goldCOMP proposal hasn’t fulfilled this.
Other issues with the specific prop:
- Unsafe admin authority for granted COMP (sent to multisig with unknown security/accountability characteristics)
- Investment strategy itself is somewhat abusive to Balancer’s liquidity incentives program
- 99/1 Balancer pools have some non-negligible potential for divergence loss, which proposal does not address
- goldCOMP token has unclear security characteristics
I’m not completely opposed to the idea of protocol owned liquidity or investment strategies but this proposal is coming up short. Humpy is welcome to engage with the community to see if there’s scope for a viable proposal.