The TM proposal will be put up for a multiple-choice vote, giving delegates the chance to select the service provider theyâd like to move forward with.
To support informed decision-making, we encourage hosting dedicated Q&A calls with delegates.
If youâre a service provider and would like to schedule a Q&A session, please reach out to me as soon as possible (if havenât already). The vote goes live on September 1, so ideally all calls should be held before Wednesday, 3 of September.
-Friday, August 29 (tomorrow), 2 PM CET â Q&A with KPK (Kapatkey)
-Monday, September 1, 12 PM CET (noon) â Q&A with Avantgarde
This is your chance to ask questions, seek clarifications, and prepare before casting your vote. Please come ready with your questions- letâs make sure we move forward with the best Treasury Management plan in place!
We endorse this proposal for the September cycle. Itâs great to see service providers stepping up with well-structured ideas, initiatives like this strengthen the Scroll DAO and help build sustainable governance.
After review, I would like to endorse this proposal. We know the importance of treasury management and weâve received three strong proposals which I believe weâre ready to now select between.
I also strongly endorse this proposal as a verified delegate to go forth for the September voting cycle. Thank you also to @connormcmk for hosting the Negation Game earlier today on this proposal!
I appreciate both @Avantgarde and @kpk presenting their proposals for Scrollâs 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. Theyâve 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 DAOâs priorities.
Implementation Approach: Avantgardeâs phased rollout plan addresses the complexity concern - starting with treasury goals/KPIs alignment before moving to active management seems prudent given this is Scrollâs first treasury management initiative.
Reporting Standards: Both providers bring strong reporting capabilities, though Iâd 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.
GM! I think candidates look strong, and theyâve been very responsive and clear in addressing questions/doubts.
My only suggestion would be to consider structuring compensation around performance fees rather than fixed management fees, in general. This approach aligns incentives more directly between the service provider and the DAO, ensuring costs track outcomes while still rewarding managers for strong execution.
From what Iâve seen, all proposals and teams are professional and well prepared, and I look forward to the vote.
I resonate with @olimpio on the compensation structuring with performance fees and believe that aspect needs to be modified in the proposal to ensure alignment between the service providers and the DAO
Hi @ZER8 and @olimpio. Thank you for your comments. Iâd like to point out that our fee structure, which includes a 20% performance fee, has been structured to align incentives with Scroll DAO, to obtain the highest possible yield within a low-risk tier.
We advise against increasing the performance fee because that would incentivise getting even higher yields, which would require increasing the risk to which Scroll DAO is exposed, increasing the probability of loss of funds.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATâs governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and itâs 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 hasnât 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 weâre after to meet the DAOâs 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)? Whatâs 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, itâll be impossible to assess whether the treasury management initiative, and by extension, the provider we elect, has been successful in fulfilling its mandate.
Hi @Sinkas, thank you for sharing your feedback. All of those are very valid points, and Iâd like to offer my perspective, and happy to continue the broader discussion in the DAO call on Wednesday.
Both service providers we spoke with - @kpk and @Avantgarde, acknowledged that we donât yet have a fully defined treasury management strategy. They also expressed willingness to approach this as a collaborative process during the first month (or longer, if needed) to help us clarify the strategy together.
We have spent many calls tryong to approach this topic, (e.g. latest Bonanza) and I fully agree that there are still so many open questions that need resolution.
The collective sense in our recent calls was that moving forward with professional support is preferable to extending the loop of treasury management conversations for several more months. Part of engaging a partner is precisely to begin with a joint assessment of where we are and what we want. Given that we donât have a dedicated treasury management council - and most of us arenât exactly experts in this area - I see value in collaborating with experts who do this full-time.
So the intention isnât to bypass the strategic discussion youâre raising, but rather to create the structure and partnership that allows us to have it productively, while also taking first steps with the TM.
Lastly, Iâd really love hearing your perspective, @Sinkas. Do you think these open questions are sufficient reason to hold off on moving forward with either provider at this stage?And if so, how would you envision the treasury management conversation evolving, or what approach would you suggest instead? Thank you!
First off, I acknowledge that I shared our feedback rather late in the process - thatâs on us.
As long as the goals we hope to achieve are determined before we take any action, even if itâs after weâve elected a service provider, which arguably might come in handy if they are willing to work with us in defining the strategy, then we are okay with moving this forward.
What we want to avoid is a situation where we blindly start committing the treasury in a direction that hasnât been properly defined.
@Sov you said that one of the key considerations in fee structure was that one is a flat performance while the other is management + performance fees, quote:
But my reading is that both of them request management fees.
The key difference is that Avantgarde only takes that fee on non-MYSO assets, and for the MYSO assets they charge only a 15% performance fee, as compared with kpkâs 20%.
Wanted to share my endorsement of Avantguardâs proposal.
Iâll broadly share my reasoning below, and of course link to the relevant rationale where helpful. Key considerations:
Avantgarde has a more friendly fee structure: 0.5% management fee only on non-MYSO assets (as opposed to kpkâs which is on all assets) and 15% performance fee on yield generated from MYSO (as opposed to kpkâs 20%). Strictly better across the board
Avantgarde has significant experience working with other DAOs, including notable ones like Arbitrum, Gitcoin, and Compound. So lower fee structure does not imply a lack of quality, theyâre an established player.
Avantgarde is on the leading edge of innovation as theyâre the ones that contributed to the development of MYSO (which has subsequently been adopted by kpk) and Enzyme.
Concerns have been raised e.g. by @coffee-crusher about the riskier, high growth strategy proposed by Avantgarde:
But by my understanding is that we can customize the aggressiveness of the approach we choose, so this shouldnât be a disqualifying concern.
In summary, I recommend voting for Avantgarde. Please review this in-depth rationale with further considerations here:
Hello everyone, weâve uploaded the recordings and transcripts for the KPK and Avantgarde proposal discussions. If you havenât had the chance to attend or want to revisit the points raised, we encourage you to go through them. These materials provide important context and clarifications that can support a more informed discussion.
We extend our gratitude to KPK, AvantGarde, and 9Summit for the thoroughness and dedication shown in their proposals and presentations for managing the Scroll DAO treasury.
We believe the treasuryâs priority should be a conservative and balanced approach, emphasizing capital preservation and a proven track record over promises of higher yields that carry elevated risks. In this regard, KPKâs proposal stands out for its institutional-grade perspective and robust risk management strategy, which aligns closely with these goals and provides us with sufficient confidence. At the same time, we greatly appreciate AvantGardeâs proposal, particularly its focus on diversification and support for Ecosystem Synergies & Protocol Integrations within Scroll. We see this commitment to the ecosystem not as a risk but as a testament to the strength and potential of Scrollâs network.
Hey all - some delegates have reached out to us seeking clarification on a few points related to our fees and partnerships, so to avoid any confusion we wanted to address these publicly on the forum as well. Thanks @connormcmk for raising this above as well!
Our 0.5% management fee only applies to deployed stables/other non-SCR growth assets, not the entire treasury from the outset, nor on assets deployed into parts 1 (SCR Diversification) and 3 (Earning Yield on idle SCR).
The 15% performance fee is the default fee charged by MYSO at the protocol level, and as such ONLY applies to the SCR Diversification and Earning Yield on idle SCR parts of our proposal. We will not be charging any mandate-specific performance fees. As stablecoins and other growth assets are acquired and deployed, this will grow to become a major difference in fees paid out.
Since we are a long-standing vault curator already, weâll be able to utilise both our existing vaults and/or create new ones specifically for the Scroll DAO. This means that instead of depositing DAO funds into strategies managed by another external manager/curator, we will have much greater control over the risk management for the assets that get deployed.
Related to point 2, this means we avoid a situation where performance fees are charged both at the service provider level and then again at a protocol level.
We will have the full backing of Regen Financial on the reporting and accounting side, which will provide tailored and actionable insights for the DAO to base strategic decisions on rather than mere performance updates. Again, weâd encourage delegates to check out the cited example Regen report for Arbitrum.
We are the sole proposal to have the full backing of the MYSO team as a close partner of ours (given that MYSO is part of Enzymeâs offerings), with extensive documented experience of working with the protocol and structured products. We have been collaborating closely with MYSO since their launch and helped put the protocol on the map where major DAOs and treasuries are now consistently leveraging the protocol for reliable revenue.
We are happy to explore broader pools of liquidity beyond DeFi (such as CEXs) which we have access to through smart contracts we utilize in our fund platform that can save the DAO the associated costs and administrative overhead of setting up an off-shore legal structure.
As an institutional-grade asset manager with decades of experience from tier-1 financial institutions such as Goldman, BlackRock, Valour and Genesis, our approach is informed by institutional rigour and risk-management expertise, not seeking âhigher, but riskier, yieldsâ. This combined with hands-on knowledge of DeFi protocols and trust-minimized, on-chain asset management infrastructure as long-term builders in the space are the drivers behind our spotless security track-record over the soon 10 years that we have been active in DeFi.
Should there be any other questions, donât hesitate to ask - thank you!
Thank you to @Aymeric, @Avantgarde, and @kpk for their proposals and engaging with the DAO on this critical matter. Treasury management will be one of the defining factors of Scroll DAOâs long-term sustainability, so itâs important we choose a partner aligned with our values and risk profile.
After reviewing the submissions, discussions, and attending the calls my inclination is to support Avantgarde for this mandate. Their proposal demonstrates not only strong treasury management experience, but also a willingness to align with the DAOâs broader strategic goals. This is super important mainly in terms of sustaining operations while actively supporting the Scroll ecosystem. The fact that theyâve already been in dialogue with delegates, and are open to working with oversight structures like the proposed Execution Oversight Council, reflects both a pragmatic and DAO-native approach.
While @Aymeric brings a proven track record in risk management and market-neutral strategies, their proposal feels more narrowly focused on capital preservation and monitoring. @kpk framework is thoughtful, particularly around stablecoin accumulation, but seems less comprehensive in terms of ecosystem alignment and transparency structures.
Given the current environment, I believe we need more than just a conservative treasury manager. To begin with we need a strategic partner that can balance risk management with ecosystem growth, without overexposing the DAO.
Call to all service providers who submitted Treasury Management proposals:
If youâre a service provider and would like to schedule a Q&A session, please reach out to me as soon as possible (if havenât already). The vote goes live on September 1, so ideally all calls should be held before Wednesday, 3 of September.
Scheduled calls: