While I appreciate the Compound Governance Working Group’s (CGWG) initiative in convening infrastructure discussions, I have concerns about the formal authority underpinning this RFP process and the precedent it sets for DAO-wide vendor selection.
The CGWG renewal proposal does not delegate responsibility for managing RFPs or making binding decisions regarding vendor procurement. While CGWG has played an important role in supporting participation and coordination, establishing a structured, high-stakes RFP process—without first securing governance approval—goes beyond the mandate granted by tokenholders. Even though this process includes snapshot and onchain votes, the fact that CGWG is unilaterally defining the structure, evaluation criteria, and oversight introduces significant influence and responsibility that have not been formally scoped or approved.
This lack of formal delegation raises valid concerns about the legitimacy and enforceability of the RFP’s outcome. We’ve already seen inconsistency in how vendor selection is approached—for example, WOOF’s proposal for core protocol development recently moved forward and passed without an RFP process and received strong support from CGWG members, while the ongoing OEV RFP evaluation was launched by CGWG around the same time. It’s not at all clear to me why one vendor proposal required an RFP and the other did not. These inconsistencies erode confidence in the objectivity and fairness of the process.
It’s also important to acknowledge that Tally is currently the de facto governance interface for Compound and has been funded in the past via the Compound Grants Program (CGP). Tally’s infrastructure is already deeply integrated into the DAO’s workflows. Even if there is merit in evaluating alternative vendors, Tally’s longstanding contributions deserve recognition. We should not pursue an RFP just for the appearance of process—especially when baseline existing needs are already being met.
Given that Tally continues to fulfill the DAO’s core governance requirements, there is no urgent justification for rushing into an RFP process. A more appropriate course of action would be to propose a short-term proposal funding Tally’s existing support and defer the broader vendor evaluation process to the soon-to-be-established Compound Foundation. The Foundation is explicitly tasked with operational leadership and vendor oversight and would be far better positioned to manage a standardized, transparent, and community-sanctioned RFP and vendor selection process.
Pushing this process forward without clear mandate risks creating confusion and undermining accountability. A more deliberate approach—grounded in formal delegation and consistent process—would better serve the DAO in the long run.