In my opinion both external proposals have merit and seem to represent fair compensation for the services provided. They each appear to be leaning towards different of our current pools, Arrakis towards HOPR/DAI and Gamma towards HOPR/ETH.
Their current TVL’s are quite far apart with Arrakis much higher, as well as having many more partnerships/projects under management than Gamma.
Our last DAO established the following ratios:
I propose that we:
Give management of 50% of the HOPR-DAI pair (6.8m)to Arrakis and retain the other 50% as per the status quo.
Give management of 50% of the HOPR/ETH pair (200k)to Gamma and retain the other 50% as per the status quo.
With a performance review after 3 months to compare each strategy with the respective 50% of liquidity managed internally as per the status quo.
If either or both providers have significantly out-performed our internally managed liquidity, we could hand over the remaining 50%, if under-performed against our internal, then we could bring the arrangement to an end.
The aim of the trial period is to establish the performance against what we are doing now. The only way in which they are competing against each other is in how much they can outperform the status quo as a percentage.
This way we will find out if their fees are worth the cost without placing all of our liquidity at additional smart contract risk (during the trial period at least).
This is of course giving much more liquidity to Arrakis, but this reflects the current experience/trust they have established with their clients as shown by their TVL when compared to Gamma.
If Gamma outperforms Arrakis as a percentage over our internal management as described above we can rebalance as appropriate.
It’s disappointing that since our last DAO, Gnosis is still not on uniswap If I understand correctly, that earmarked liquidity is currently sitting redundant with no current timeline for use. If so, we should consider shifting it to either uniswap-on-ETH or swapr DEX-on-Gnosis.