The only thing I would add is: Is the goal to diversify the treasury, as is the name of this proposal? Because it seems like the goal is rather to secure 2 years of runway by attaining $29mm in stables.
If securing runway is the goal, we already have $31mm in ether that can be liquidated with very little slippage. Instead of diversification, I believe it would be prudent to convert that to stables. I believe this ether came from raising a prior round (?), although I am unsure. What I am sure of is that we have the money for the next 2 years, it just needs to be converted from eth to stables. I dont believe we need to raise again at this time.
Imo a conservative protocol should have mostly stables and their native token in the treasury. I think the team sees the need for this too.
I, like everyone else here probably, believe that ether will cost more in the future. But we cant be sure. So i would convert the ether now and secure the future. And then raise venture dollars for LDO in a year or so, if we need it.
PS. sorry if i was offensive in earlier messages. I got a bit heated bc i thought it was a bad deal.
Im an idiot, and I dont have all the context. But if people think selling the ether is a good idea, a snapshot vote could be written something like this:
Should Lido DAO convert 20,000 ether to a USD stablecoin?
Answer 1: Yes
Answer 2: No
We need to secure 2 years of runway. We estimate that to be $29 million dollars. Our largest liabilities are in USD equivalents and LDO.
We cannot reasonably predict the future price of LDO and ETH. These are the two largest assets in our treasury. Because team costs are priced in LDO and USD, we need to secure our future. We propose selling treasury ether raised from a prior round to do this.
If the yes vote wins, we will execute the sale within 5 days of snapshot close. It is at the team’s discretion to get the best price. The team may use OTC, a DEX, or a CEX, at their discretion.
Vitalik showed us how important it is to have staking decentralized, when he talked about protocols self limiting. It was important that we choose not to do this (as we did), as other more centralized services could take over our top spot and use their power in a harmful way.
I believe that one of the ways we should achieve this decentralization is by creating a supply crunch in ethereums future governance token, LDO, and making sure it is too expensive for a single player to hold a majority of LDO. To do so, everyone needs to play by the same rules and acquire LDO in the open market. At a $1.5b FDV, it is still possible for a single player to take over. At $1T it is much harder.
As it applies to selling to funds, I am happy to sell my LDO to funds at $15 per LDO; if we reach 66% of all staked ether, I would be happy to sell at $150 per LDO.
Unpopular opinion but this obsession with lockups and preventing VC’s/funds from “dumping on the community” is stupid when applied to LDO at this stage.
Sure, Dragonfly or whoever else should not be able to buy at a discount and sell the next day. But the original offer was a 50% premium to 7-day TWAP which only became a little weird when the market rallied. Even still, they are buying well above the 1-month and 2-month averages. The whole reason there is a trade here is because neither DAO nor VC can market sell/buy the size they want with current liquidity. But then somehow they are going to profitably dump all the tokens immediately?
I get that we’ve been burned many times by VC’s buying seed tokens and selling a speculative rally before anything has been delivered or accomplished. But this deal looks nothing like that. In this case, there has been plenty of liquidity for retail to get what they want at the same or lower price than the VC. I am annoyed by this cynical attitude exemplified by Hsaka’s tweets criticizing the “predetermined outcome”. Maybe securing an 18-24 month runway of stablecoins in this uncertain market is the most boring and obvious decision of all time.