Shortlist market makers and liquidity providers

Shutter DAO DAO Proposals
1

There are already two proposals governance proposals for allocating tokens for market-making and liquidity provision activities.

Both proposals are self-dealing and do not have balanced information needed to make a good and informed governance decision. It is not possible for the delegates to comment the quality of the proposals due to the lack of information and fair comparison.

To bootstrap Shutter liquidity and maximise the benefit for token holders, I suggest

  • Confirm the timeline in the internal discussion (I assume this is something that needs be done by tomorrow)
  • The DAO members will write a proposal for hiring advisory and market-making services
  • This proposal is publicly announced in various forums and sent to a minimum of five different specialists, including some well-known brands in the industry
  • Specialists have enough time to respond with their offer
  • The competition will give the Shutter DAO fair information about the market-making activity prices and industry features
  • The offers are rated based on 1. price 2. quality factors 3. history of the specialist 4. earlier references that can be messaged and asked if they were happy with the provider
  • DAO delegates vote based on options result of this offer competition
  • Meanwhile any proposals that are directly from the service providers themselves should be rejected

This way Shutter is likely also to end up in the radar of 1) large companies operating in this space 2) crypto press.

An example of Compound doing something similar for security audits before.

4 Likes
3

Also, regarding the recent use of the terms “self dealing” (above) and “insane” (by another DAO 0x36 member), I would encourage everyone to engage in constructive conversation - and to avoid hyperbole or logical fallacies.

4 Likes
4

Thank you for a good summary @Loring.

To present the opportunity to different service providers, Shutter would need to decide

  • The amount of tokens allocated to the initial market making, with the terms (loan. option, vesting period) - probably % of the token supply makes sense in this point
  • The scope and duration of the activities (only DEXes vs. CEXes, etc.)
  • Selection criteria
  • Publish the call for offers somewhere
  • Communication method for getting offers (getting offers emailed to address)
  • Deadline when offers are revealed (no changes or underbidding after the offers are presented and voting starts)
  • DAO members can hunt down different providers and make sure whether they want to participate or not

I feel this is a light-touch approach and does not need much more resources than are needed to go through the agreement with self-offered service providers that show up in the DAO voting with their own announcement.

1 Like
5

For the reference here are some examples

Note that these examples are not necessarily good examples.

Also on the second example you see that there was some problems delivering the promised service to the DAO and the DAO should have some sort a way to terminate the agreement prematurely if there are issues.

3 Likes
6

Another good way to get some intel and who are doing this kind of stuff is searching Snapshot for past market-making proposals across all DAOs.

2 Likes
7

Hi @miohtama ,

Like your detailed comment and candor

Regrading our proposal we did tried to provide some info you mentioned in this post (albeit might be in a different forms). If you see any other required info missing, let us know we are happy to provide

1 Like
8

Thank you @miohtama for this proposal. We agree that in the spirit of due diligence we need to have a benchmark of different Market Makers in order to make the best choice for the DAO.

We also appreciate the idea from @Loring of doing some RFP. However, the risk with this approach is overpaying for some services or having some proposals that aren’t matching our needs.

We think setting up clear needs in terms of market making criteria and then having some proposals from service providers would be the best approach.

Kleros Labs

1 Like
9

I disagree. In my experience, the RFP approach @Loring suggested is actually one of the best ways to ensure the DAO doesn’t overpay or get proposals that don’t match the needs.

Isn’t this exactly what the proposed RFP process allows for?

From what I’ve experienced, the type of open RFP process @Loring described allows for a very efficient explanation of the DAOs needs on almost any given premise, while also allowing for a “debatable” set of criteria that then puts the burden on the respondents to describe how they will meet the DAOs needs stated in the RFP. Creativity and iteration can be fostered in an open way, while still indexed to the initially defined needs.

I’d strongly encourage a model like this be adopted.

1 Like
10

@miohtama, Thank you for making this summery.

1 Like
11

Thank you @5pence for your comment. Overall we agree on the general approach, RFP could work very well if the needs are clearly defined from the start. We just don’t want to have too broad RFP that can attract a lot of proposals not aligned with the interests of the DAO.

The goal of the DAO is to find the sweet point between defining the needs clearly and giving some room for “debatable” criteria as you said. We will also support such model in the future

1 Like