I appreciate both @Avantgarde and @kpk presenting their proposals for Scroll’s treasury management.
Having worked with @Avantgarde at Gitcoin where they currently manage strategic assets under SGTM-002, I can share some operational perspective on their capabilities. They’ve demonstrated solid execution with clear reporting, conservative risk management appropriate for DAO treasuries, and responsiveness to community feedback. They have been a good partner from my perspective and very patient with us as we worked through the proposal process with them over a number of months.
A few observations on the proposals:
- Fee Structure Considerations: The difference between flat performance fees versus management + performance fees represents different alignments. Both have merit depending on the DAO’s priorities.
- Implementation Approach: Avantgarde’s phased rollout plan addresses the complexity concern - starting with treasury goals/KPIs alignment before moving to active management seems prudent given this is Scroll’s first treasury management initiative.
- Reporting Standards: Both providers bring strong reporting capabilities, though I’d suggest the selected provider commit to monthly touchpoints during initial implementation, not just quarterly reports.
I agree with @SEEDGov that this discussion has matured enough to move toward a voting cycle. The proposals are substantively different enough that delegates can make an informed choice based on their priorities for fee structure, implementation approach, and risk management philosophy.