Then what specifically about previous buybacks funded by the treasury makes it different?
1 Like
Hey there,
First off: I find it a bit weird this accounts first forum interaction is only on this thread and created 2-3 days ago as you speak as a member from the team or AA. Would enjoy your main forum account here than an alt.
Second: AA or Aragon has completed a multitude of buybacks in its history. Tokens that have conducted buybacks have A. not been delisted for doing so - if so would love proof. B. DEX can not ban tokens from its front end… its a dex.
Third: Upon research into your claims more - Where is the transparency report for 2022 for AA, and where is the DAO transparency report for 2022? What is there being hid there…
Fourth: The DAO has voted to move FULL treasury LAST YEAR. And only just moved 300k last week or so? Going by that vote it seems the DAO is responsible for the treasury. Please refer to the image: FINANCE and OPS contributor claiming against your claims:
1 Like
Only a few months ago the association conducted buybacks. So using the same “substance over form”, what makes this different?
1 Like
As said above, the DAO should already be in full custody of its treasury by now. Unless the Association intends to steal the funds for its usage, it should at least act as a transparent custodian for the DAO[1]
Regardless, given that we’re anons here, I’d be interested to have a neutral perspective from a swiss lawyer(s) regarding this if the DAO thinks it’s an issue. There have been many controversial actions lately from the Association and the team, and I think an outside counsel could help the participants move forward.
The proposal is, I think, an excellent one for the DAO as a hole:
- Rewarding contributors with ANT tokens aligns the incentives toward a growth mindset and adds skin in the game, which is an essential primitive of crypto activities. It’s also standard in every successful DAO.
- The swap won’t decrease the value of the treasury, and will grant the DAO with precious tokens that will be used to grow its activities by allowing it to benefit from the value it adds to the ecosystem.
- Treasury management should be done in the interest of the protocol, meaning spending when it’s necessary. It’s not about behaving like Smaug in Erebor. Such swap should have been done long ago to sustain ANT, increase the assets/ANT ratio, and protect the DAO against centralization of its supply. It is however not too late, and action should be taken as soon as possible.
[1]: As a sidenote, it’s a bit painful that Aragon advertises treasury management tools to other DAOs but refuses to use it for itself.
Thank you, @luis, for the proposal. I am looking forward to the discussion.
As for my comments, I only have the information as one of the guilds; I am not part of the AA anymore.
ANT Holders signalled the transfer. Signalling does not give control, regardless of how much you want it to.
Think @F.C.Savigny has made the point pretty clearly.
Aragon’s treasury is mostly on Aragon Client @Yakitori managed by the Aragon Association as explained a separate entity - would appreciate it if all new accounts would do some research.
Nothing is hidden. Teams were voted on in the DAO, so the budgets are transparent now. That was the focus. The new Ops guild is working through doing the monthly reports for the DAO and Guilds, first ones being this month. Almost everything is on-chain in known wallets - not sure how anything can be hidden.
I think @Yakitori point around looking at what is actually possible in Switzerland is important. As all ANT holders who vote in the new AragonDAO are members and liable.
I agree with distributing ANT tokens to align incentives as well.
Perfect, and given that some funds have already been transferred, and as you said earlier, the Association has acted that “The treasury is in principle governed by ANT holders”. Then what is preventing the association to performing a treasury transfer, that has been delayed for a year now?
“Ensuring smart contracts are safe”, for something as simple as asset management, can’t be the reason. Aragon has the execution capacity and the runway to hire the best auditors around. An outside eye would see that the Association is only executing its duty when it suits its needs, not the DAO’s.
Regarding treasury management, I can recommend https://www.karpatkey.com/ which is doing an excellent job at managing DAO’s assets.
1 Like
using the “substance over form” argument, it does not matter if you are not part of AA, the end effect was the treasury which is under the association was used to buy back ant tokens.
1 Like
You will have to get that from the AA.
I agree an active manager in the future would be good. For now, I would say ETH staking is enough, agile small steps.
It was always in phases, and that was made clear.
Anyway, I am here to engage productively in Luis’s proposal, which I think is an excellent discussion step.
Sure we can work together to make it work. Even if we start with the long-term first, incentivising wANT holders seems like a good idea to me.
4 Likes
I agree, staking eth is enough, not sure why the need to hold uni tokens and others. I fear the idea of putting things in a enzyme fund, and complex active management to be a net drain on the treasury - it is very hard to actively manage a treasury on chain of this size, just look at any onchain hedge funds performance, be it enzyme or dhedge. Plus then have to pay active managers. Adding to smart contract risks. Best to keep the assets few and simple, and find robust yield. Stick to ETH, Stables - stables can be in uniswap pools or curve pools, eth can be staked. This is very simple, low overhead for management and safest. Anything you buy onchain is correlated to eth anyway.
Again: voluntary discretionary buy back for the benefit of the Aragon projects are generally possible (the twitter post is a communication of an executed buy-back - this is not the same as upfront communication) . Posting a buy back and committing to a buy back upfront not. This is the big difference.
@AntHolder don’t think that you account is much older + what does it matter?
All my statements are based on laws and legal doctrine. Be careful by relying on Twitter posts. Twitter statements are not reliable and prone to fake and inaccurate information.
It is key that participants in this forum get good quality information.
Agree, I do enjoy Luis’s proposal to bridge the gap.
I agree with wANT incentivizes (I remember you brought this up maybe a month or so ago).
Maybe we can preform phases with luis’s proposal.
-
first agree on some sort of buyback mechanism or one that brings marketcap in a healthier standing to treasury value.
-
Agree on wANT incentives.
… and so on style of dialogue. As there is a lot of parts to digest in said prop.
Looking forward to it.
2 Likes
Okay so thats the detail, thanks for clearing it up. Buybacks are okay if not pre-announced.
Hey everyone, I am reaching out from Bunni, a liquidity engine built on top of Uni v3. Without shilling too much we have helped process over 240m in volume for frax, an early adopter, in the first few months https://dune.com/bored_genius/bunni; I would be happy to share more info on this.
Ive been lurking in here for a bit and see two potential spots for a Bunni <> Aragon partnership. I’ll attach a screenshot of one. For the other, I am looking at this forum post related to treasury. There is a comment in here about liquidity still being a little thin, so this seems like a good time to chat.
I’m headed to the gym, but happy to field questions and discuss.
Exactly - (1) voluntarily, (2) not pre-announced , and (3) for the benefit of the purpose of the project.
So what date does the current AA team’s tenure end and require being voted back in? Or are we going to get anal about securities laws when it comes to pre-announcement of buybacks, while ignoring the ‘centralized control’ part where the AA cannot be usurped?
Failing to do any DD on a DAO proposal that was accepted last year and committed to be acted upon since, until suddenly this week deciding it’s all illegal and unviable due to taxation isn’t a great show of value for money spent from our treasury. So, when can we vote the AA stewards out?
Post got deleted - just said thanks for clarifying.
So if we do not post it on twitter but keep the buyback conversation internal to our forum - is that okay?
As the forum is public - unfortunately not. Still one of the challenges that I try to solve. How can DAOs discuss confidential matters? Should be a solution that allows only to read and communicate if (a) you hold tokens of the DAO and (b) hold a verified DiD.
what is a verified DiD? One could create anonymous private communication verified by ownership.
I feel there are multiple ways we could handle this.
only token holder verified channels (discord has functionality)
and im sure others have more creative ways of handling
There’s a contradiction in your statements:
- Either A) AragonDAO is responsible for the treasury, can swap its tokens, and then a discussion around securities laws can happen.
- Or B) Aragon Association is an independent org with a treasury, can swap tokens as it has done before, which does not imply that it is a security as ANT holders have no right over it.
Right now the B) prevails, especially after the latest move where everything about the ANT token was removed from the website. Hence, AA buying ANT is similar to any legal entity buying ANT, which doesn’t make it a security.
Also, if you want to assert an authority over legal discussions, please state your name + qualifications.
[EDIT]: it appears that a token swap being discussed beforehand has already happened without any legal drama?
1 Like
