🧾 Request for Comments: DAO treasury management RFP

Ecosystem Growth
,
1

tldr

This Request for Comments (RFC) is to review the treasury management Request for Proposals (RFP).

If you only have time for one thing, please review the ‘Open Questions for the DAO’ below.

Summary

The Governance team at the Scroll Foundation putting forth a Request for Comments on the proposed Request for Proposals (RFP) that will invite qualified service providers to support the DAO in designing, implementing, and evolving DAO treasury management strategy.

This call aims to build a robust and transparent foundation for treasury operations aligned with our long-term mission.

We are opening up questions to the DAO regarding preferred models, risk parameters, and strategic objectives for treasury governance. We are looking for feedback within one week of this post appear on the forum, and then will convert this Request for Comments into a Request for Proposal.

Background & motivation

DAOs take varied approaches to treasury management. Based on the public information, it seems that Optimism enables automated on-chain transfers and is exploring a Treasury Council. Arbitrum seems to have selected their partners via the RFP. Lido aligns treasury strategy with keeping ETH as the primary unit of account managed by a multisig committee. (Do ping us in the comments in case the aforementioned information is outdated or you have more insights on how other DAOs do it (successfully or not)).

The idea to progress treasury diversification conversations isn’t new and we had it listed in the Q1 goals. Since then, we have spoken to several service providers, looked into how other ecosystems are doing it and are finally ready to set a CTA:

  • Community input - perspectives, questions, and ideas on how Scroll DAO should approach treasury management

Once we receive comments from the community and revise the proposal, then we will open up a formal Request for Proposal. This RFP will seek:

  • Service provider proposals - including scope, cost, and reasoning for why their model fits Scroll DAO’s needs

Why now?

As Scroll DAO grows, so does the need for clear, proactive treasury management. A strong treasury strategy helps us:

  • Extend runway and reduce risk
  • Diversify beyond a single asset
  • Fund long-term programs and contributors
  • Support DAO independence and sustainability

The governance team has spoken to several experienced partners, including:

:ballot_box_with_ballot: Open questions for the DAO

We’d love to hear from the community. As we explore the path forward for Scroll’s treasury, please share:

  • Selection process - DAO vote, foundation choice + DAO veto, DAO vote + Foundation veto, quadratic vote, other?
  • Preference towards a single provider vs group. As in, are we open to a single provider potentially getting the opportunity to service the DAO or is there a clear preference for 2-3 to collaborate?
  • Any thoughts, comments, or examples from other ecosystems that we should consider?
  • Any service providers you would recommend we talk to? (or, alternatively, recommend not to)
  • Any strategies or priorities you believe the selected service provider(s) should focus on? (e.g. Should we prioritize stablecoin conversion ? Do we prefer modular on-chain execution (e.g., via Zodiac) or multisig ops?)
  • Any thoughts on forming a treasury management council or working group? The sentiment after CCC3 seemed to indicate no to a council / working group and yes to being held accountable by an Accountability Council and the Foundation.

If no feedback or other ideas are given then the gov team will assume that:

  • there is a preference for multiple providers, and
  • the DAO prefers a DAO vote with multiple options

Drop your input in the thread - this is a collaborative process, and your opinion matters.

Proposed Timeline

  • Tue July 29th - Request for Comments goes live
  • Tue Aug 5th - Request for Comments closes
  • Wed Aug 6th - Request for Proposals goes live
  • Fri Aug 15th - Request for Proposals closes

Open call to the service providers:

The governance team invites qualified service providers to submit proposals to support the DAO in developing a robust treasury management strategy. We are particularly interested in teams with demonstrated experience managing on-chain assets, supporting DAO governance processes, and designing transparent, risk-aware financial systems.

This is an opportunity to help shape Scroll’s financial future - not just by managing assets, but by co-designing the frameworks and tools that will support long-term sustainability, decentralization, and protocol alignment.

We welcome proposals from:

  • Treasury management companies/DAOs
  • On-chain risk and financial modeling teams
  • DAO-native strategists and financial consultants
  • Service providers with experience in tooling

All proposals will be reviewed by the Foundation and the DAO. Shortlisted teams may be invited to present their proposal publicly and/or take part in a pilot program or deeper scoping round.

All submitted proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

  1. Strategic fit: alignment with Scroll DAO’s mission & values.
  2. Relevant experience
  3. Treasury & risk management approach
  4. Tooling
  5. Cost
  6. Willingness to potentially work alongside other service providers

:open_mailbox_with_raised_flag: Submission Guidelines

Who can apply:
Treasury management companies/DAOs, on-chain risk and financial modeling teams, DAO-native strategists and financial consultants as well as service providers with experience in tooling.

What to include:

  • Overview of your team and relevant DAO experience
  • Description of proposed services
  • Tooling or protocol integrations
  • Pricing
  • Risk frameworks and assumptions
  • Case studies (examples from your work in other DAOs)

Proposal Deadline: Fri August 15th, 2025 at midnight UTC-8.

Please submit proposals as a post or comment in this thread.

9 Likes
2

From our perspective, this is an excellent step in the write direction. It makes sense to ensure that while the DAO pursues various initiatives, the DAO is being financially responsible.

The DAO needs to be well-capitalised to meet its financial obligations. The DAO also needs to move away from paying people in SCR, and finally, the DAO needs a clearly defined budget for operations, at least a quarterly budget segmented across different aspects of the DAO.

3 Likes
3

Shared the post at X so providers can come and offer their services and advantages: https://x.com/humbertobesso/status/1950605666525073843?s=46&t=BbkZvpxO1zjcKci51Aosmw

4

Hi all,

I think @Kene_StableLab nailed it:

I would like to see the DAO become as “bear market ready” as possible. It would be great to see the DAO operate efficiently in all market conditions rather than be at its mercy.

I would also like to see a futarchy experiment in treasury management at some point in the future.

In response to the open questions:

Cheers!

5

Thanks for the proposal Eugene and the great open questions that inspired me to share feedback on some of them.

For the selection process, I’d suggest a DAO vote with the Foundation having the ability to veto. The rationale here is that the Foundation is currently managing delegations, and in these early stages, it would be a strong signal to the ecosystem that stakeholders are aligned on such an important decision.

I think it’s better to have a single service provider rather than multiple. From an efficiency standpoint, it makes things simpler for both the provider and the DAO. I’m not sure yet how we’re planning to pay service providers, but that’s going to be a key detail in shaping the final decision. In general, the level of risk the DAO is comfortable with will guide the provider’s approach, and from what I’ve seen, DAOs tend to play things pretty safe. Also, if one provider is getting paid meaningfully, they’re more likely to make proactive proposals and engage with the DAO, rather than treating it like just another client.

I really like how Karpatkey manages the ENS treasury and how they report weekly on governance calls. In other DAOs, the information is available but you usually need to go looking for it. Karpatkey keeps delegates updated on their strategy and market outlook in a way that makes engagement much easier. If we had multiple providers, I think that kind of tight, ongoing relationship would be less likely to happen.

I don’t believe we need a working group either. I want to emphasize that the more layers of bureaucracy we introduce, the more expensive and less effective the DAO becomes. We should focus our resources on advancing the mission. Of course, some structure and clarity around roles is important, but we need to keep things lightweight and focused.

1 Like