Thank you for the thoughtful suggestions. Just to address some of the proposals we can provide more helpful input on:
1: Token cancelation would not really matter from our POV as we consider it to be ‘unissued’. Whether it’s canceled or not does not limit the ability of the DAO to issue or repurchase tokens anyway.
2: This is quite orthodox. DAO grants are funded in USD stablecoins while revenues are in ETH. This obviously creates an exchange rate risk to the continuity of grant funding should ETH price decline.
There are relevant materials in the Treasury Management Committee threads regarding the minimalist no-custody and automatable strategies in place and in development. TMC-1 and tactical motions like TMC-3 are relevant. So this is already taking place.
If we could draw an ideal endpoint where the DAO could fund its grants without regard to the price of ETH, it would look like an endowment-type stablecoin allocation in a simple product like sUSDS whose proceeds could effectively fund the grants in perpetuity. To achieve this on an illustrative $60m annual burn rate at 4.5%, the DAO would need $1.3bn in reserves. At time of writing the ETH balance of the surplus is ±$50m with stablecoins from TMC-1 on top ($22m today). Per SAFU Lido DAO accrues ±300 ETH a week or ±$25m a year at today’s prices.
Unfortunately this is not a viable endpoint, though through motions like TMC-1 and others we hope to reach an end state that minimizes the risk to grant continuity in a more sustainable way. The fastest way to improve this outlook is, in order of sensitivity, ETH price rerating and market share gains in staking.