The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Although a bit late in the process, we wanted to take a minute to share our thoughts on the concept of treasury management and this RFP. We thank the Foundation for compiling the RFP and appreciate the time and effort service providers have invested in submitting their proposals.
Managing the treasury and taking action to mitigate price risk is a prudent and much-welcome move. However, any strategy that extends beyond simple diversification for the sake of fiscal responsibility should stem from a specific strategic need or goal. So far, this process has lacked this element, and service providers have been left to determine what that need/goal is, define it, and propose its execution on their own.
There hasn’t been any discussion or analysis on what exactly we are trying to achieve with active treasury management initiatives. Is there a specific stablecoin budget that we’re after to meet the DAO’s needs? Do we want to bootstrap the liquidity of Scroll protocols via POL? Are we solely after the best possible yield regardless of its source (e.g., even different chains)? What’s our collective risk tolerance? Trying to properly assess and select a service provider and strategy without first answering the above questions, as well as others, is pointless.
Consequently, without predetermined goals, it’ll be impossible to assess whether the treasury management initiative, and by extension, the provider we elect, has been successful in fulfilling its mandate.