Thanks for comment - it’s a long post and there’s lots to dig into, so hopefully a lot of this will become clearer as we progress the conversations, its natural for there to be concerns given the early stage of this discussion.
ABO Digital are mentioned in the opening paragraph.
Having a pool of stables q be managed by a council.
This is not correct:
- USDT is sent from the investor to Kusama treasury accounts that are spendable via the exact same governance processes that currently exists. A proposing team just selects to receive from these pots rather than KSM, nothing changes.
-
The only difference to the current process is that each of these treasury accounts now contains $1m (or whatever size of tranches that are eventually decided).
-
The only role of the curators (council) is to optimise the timing of the sales of KSM → USDT and to sign legal agreements, which will massively improve the efficiency of KSM disposals, compared to the current approach where each team sells at their discretion.
-
The introduction of a legal entity associated to the DAO treasury is something we either choose to do now, or we have enforced on us under unfavourable conditions at a later date by courts. It is better to get ahead of the regulatory curve, rather than be behind it. The adminstrators of this legal entity would not have powers over funds, other than for the express purposes established by the community. This gives the community far more oversight and accountability than it has right now and ultimately puts those in these positions with actual legal responsibilities.
Absolutely - but to have a workable RFP you need a number of competing offers.
I would encourage those with relationships to develop a comparable / competitive approach that seeks to address the same issues faced by Kusama currently.