IIP-122: Delegate FLI launch decisions to PWG & DFP on a per-chain basis

IIP: 122
Title: Delegate FLI launch decisions to PWG & DFP on a per-chain basis
Status: Proposed
Author: @afromac
Reviewed: @sixtykeys @overanalyser @ChrisG @Matthew_Graham
Created: 4 January 2022

Simple Summary

The FLI products have proven to be a lucrative and popular product. It is in the interest of Index Coop and DeFi Pulse to scale this product suite as rapidly as possible. Working with our normal DG1 and DG2 process adds considerable overhead and slows down deployment. If we launch 25 FLI products in 2022, that will require 50 individual snapshot votes. We are already taking steps to streamline FLI governance requirements, but believe that it is in the best interest of all parties to further streamline and formalize this process.

PWG is actively looking for a way to reduce this admin and governance overhead so that we can move more quickly and win the market. This proposal is to create a process to delegate responsibility to a team composed of PWG and DeFi Pulse members to launch products on a per-chain basis.

Motivation

The recent launch of ETH2x-FLI-P on the Polygon Network is a great demonstration of how well these products will perform on various layer 2 and side-chains. The future of the product range is to scale to as many chains as we can reasonably determine demand exists.

We know we want to launch more, and we know that each product will operate with the same fundamental strategy that has proven safe, secure and popular. Moreso, we have already built and developed the infrastructure to do so. As such, it seems unnecessarily burdensome to navigate the Decision Gate process for each additional product.

PWG proposes the creation of a team including members of PWG and DeFi Pulse that will seek authority to launch further FLI products on a per-chain basis. This will remove the need for a DG1 and DG2 vote. Instead an IIP will be proposed by a member of each team as co-authors, seeking the authority to launch FLI products on that specific chain.

An example would be:

IIP-XX Launch FLI Products on Avalanche Chain

authors: @afromac (Index Coop) & @ChrisG (DeFi Pulse)

Passing this vote would enable the team to decide on products to launch in line with demand and feasibility, and not constrained by governance and time-gating. In this example, the team would quickly be able to launch 6 products in rapid succession:

AVAX, iAVAX, ETH, iETH, BTC, iBTC

These would make up the total products that are technically feasible and where reasonable demand might exist. As debt markets mature and liquidity deepens on this sidechain, we would be able to quickly launch future AVAX FLIs to meet demand. Over the next several years, this will hugely advantage Index Coop by enabling us to move swiftly and capitalise on opportunities as they arise.

A future FLI launch schedule in 2022 could look like:

Polygon Product Quarter
ETH 1
iETH 1
BTC 1
iBTC 1
MATIC 1
iMATIC 1
Avalanche Product Quarter
ETH 2
iETH 2
BTC 2
iBTC 2
AVAX 2
iAVAX 2
Optimism Product Quarter
ETH 3
iETH 3
BTC 3
iBTC 3
Arbitrum Product Quarter
ETH 3
iETH 3
BTC 3
iBTC 3
Solana Product Quarter
ETH 4
iETH 4
BTC 4
iBTC 4
SOL 4
iSOL 4

Specification:

A team of FLI product managers (composed of IC and DFP members) will be delegated the authority to seek approval to launch FLI products on a per-chain basis. When the team determines that the FLI suite can be extended to a new chain, a member from each organization will co-author a new IIP to seek delegated authority to schedule FLI launches on that chain. This will be accomplished by a single IIP. Each new approval will not require DG1 and DG2, and will rely on a single vote.

Following a successful vote, Index Coop and DeFi Pulse FLI product managers will have the delegated authority to schedule new FLI products on that chain as they become technically feasible and where reasonable demand can be determined to exist. Any products scheduled under this regime will be agreed upon with input from EWG and the newly formed Liquidity Pod to ensure it integrates with any other existing roadmap.

This delegated authority to act will automatically renew with any major periodic update to Index Coop’s organizational structure. Each time a newly formed Index Council is created, they will retain the right to the decision to end this delegation. If no request to end delegation is received by forum post within 10 days of the formation of the new Index Council, this delegated authority to act will automatically renew until the next Council is formed.

The team will include:

Quorum Requirements

These proposals will bypass much of the Decision Gate process, and give the relevant team the authority to launch FLI products on a given chain autonomously. This is a deviation from our standard product governance process. Therefore the Governance Nest recommends that a higher quorum be instilled for such proposals.

  • 10% of all $INDEX in circulating supply must participate in the vote

Voting

FOR:

DO delegate FLI decisions to PWG & DFP as detailed above.

AGAINST:

DO NOT change the existing arrangement.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CCO.

8 Likes

hey Afromac, thanks for engaging on this one. This is important work and speeding the number of products through the pipeline makes sense. One main concern is the cross organizational support. As the products are launched into a new chain, is there any cross-functional support needed? For example, do you need Growth to help with commercialization? The design team to make adjustments to the website? Do you need additional “how to” documents to be created? Finance nest? Tweetstorms? Seems that part of the voting process allows other functions to comment on their ability to support the launch. If there is zero support / impact to other functions, then it follows to me that this really should be owned by the pod. If support is needed from other functions, then perhaps the change process needs to be re-tooled specifically for expedited bundling. Instead of 50 decision points, drop it down to just DG1 / DG2 per chain, or challenge Gov Ops to write an easier process. What I would fear is launching 25 new purchasing options, but without the right organizational / commercial support, the products miss the adoption mark.

3 Likes

Hey Shawn, thanks for the excellent questions. I am happy to provide some clarity here.

The pod was originally set up as a cross functional unit. Currently we have members from product, growth, analytics, bd and liaise regularly with engineering.

In the case of growth, @TheYoungCrews manages growth functions for FLI launches and is participant in all meetings and conversations focused on launches and roadmapping. Your question about design is an excellent one. I think there is a strong impetus in IC at the moment to increase the functionality of the website and @alerex is leading that initiative. You can expect the UI and UX experience for FLI to evolve over time and the website to play a more important role there.

With regards to “how to” documents, we create all of those ourselves. @allan.g and my own medium accounts give a pretty good sample:

Allan also created the current FLI gitbook which is a really detailed asset: Flexible Leverage Indices (FLI) - Index Coop Community Handbook

We, and other members of the team, will continue to support the products in this way.

The primary responsibilities of the pod to the F.Nest from a product perspective is to provide budgets for seed liquidity and deployment. This has already been provided up to March 2024 based on our best projections.

Here is a sample of the 2022 planning:

FLI Products
Seed Capital
Total IC Seed Liquidity $6,500,000
IC Seed liquidty per product $250,000
Total Possible Products 26
Max Simultaneous Product Launches 4
Seed Liquidity Required for big launches $1,000,000
Buffer Liquidity in case of slow AUM growth $500,000
Max Liquidity Required for FLI schedule $1,500,000
Chains
Polygon
Optimism
Arbitrum
Avalanche
Solana
Assumptions:
Launch FLI on all available chains
Aave V3 will enable debt postions to be created on each chain
FLI versions of ETH and BTC and native token (MATIC/SOL etc)
Inverse FLI of each product
Chain
Polygon Product Status Seed Liquidity
ETH Launched $250,000
iETH Private Discussions $250,000
BTC Private Discussions $250,000
iBTC Private Discussions $250,000
MATIC Post DG2 $250,000
iMATIC Private Discussions $250,000
Total Seed Liquidity $1,500,000
Optimism Product Status Seed Liquidity
ETH Private Discussions $250,000
iETH Private Discussions $250,000
BTC Private Discussions $250,000
iBTC Private Discussions $250,000
Total Seed Liquidity $1,000,000
Arbitrum Product Status Seed Liquidity
ETH Private Discussions $250,000
iETH Private Discussions $250,000
BTC Private Discussions $250,000
iBTC Private Discussions $250,000
Total Seed Liquidity $1,000,000
Avalanche Product Status Seed Liquidity
ETH Private Discussions $250,000
iETH Private Discussions $250,000
BTC Private Discussions $250,000
iBTC Private Discussions $250,000
AVAX Private Discussions $250,000
iAVAX Private Discussions $250,000
Total Seed Liquidity $1,500,000
Solana Product Status Seed Liquidity
ETH Private Discussions $250,000
iETH Private Discussions $250,000
BTC Private Discussions $250,000
iBTC Private Discussions $250,000
SOL Private Discussions $250,000
iSOL Private Discussions $250,000
Total Seed Liquidity $1,500,000

Yes, that is a fair observation. We will have to be clear in signalling our intentions to launch via roadmapping and public communications. What would you consider fair notice? We could include a clause to create a forum post to signal our intentions to add an additional product on a chain for a fixed time before it is confirmed on the roadmap. We could also include a clause to allow a minimum window between forum post and launch.

@edwardk and @Static121 would you have any suggestions here for a minimum amount of notice for a new FLI product being launched?

Two points on this:

  1. My thesis (still unproven) on these products is that they will always be far more successful not as standalone assets, but as an ecosystem. The goal here is not to launch as many as possible and hope something sticks, but to be strategic in what we launch and where in order to provide opportunities for traders to incorporate simplified leveraged trading into their personal strategies - regardless of their preferred sidechain.

  2. That said, the repeatable nature of these products and the extremely low cost of launching on L2s and sidechains means that a failed product is not a disaster. Index Coop does not need to pick winners in terms of chains. We can quickly and easily scale our FLI line to be chain agnostic and let the market pick the long term winners. We will already be there with a dominant ecosystem. That is the long term advantage of launching aggressively where we see demand to do so now.

4 Likes

First, I agree with @afromac’s thesis that these products specifically flourish as an ecosystem. They’re a natural fit for trailblazing into new chains // great revenue generators with low deployment costs. Super for this.

As far as having creative assets ready… i’d say, depending on what you want, a two week minimum with the more time given the higher quality the assets.

I’ll just note that it looks like we are developing pretty aggressive product release roadmaps for both the composite indices and automated indices pods in 2022, and I think it’s going to be absolutely vital that we pay a lot of attention to resourcing and communication around launches.

10 Likes

Great point. Let’s organize a meeting in the coming weeks to organize a playbook/best practices for coordinating design requests.

1 Like

It’s going to depend mainly on relative priorities and less about “how long does engineering need”. I’d say 2-3 weeks minimum would be nice.

5 Likes

If PWG membership explicitly include core cross functional members, and those members recognize the their sign off in the internal process is commitment for home function support, then boom! The need is met, and is actually quite elegant.

tick, need met.

tick, need met.

looks like you have it tactically handled with @Static121 & @edwardk - I don’t know that you have to hard-code it into the proposal but strategically DAO problems seems to be centered on communication. the x-functional PWG members will have to play a big part, but also early / often communications from PWC outward will likely be necessary in order to skip the very public governance process. Dang… you got this.

1 Like

Hi @Mringz. Can you please assign an IIP number and schedule vote to being today at 18:00 UTC.

Additionally, please set minimum quorum at 10% of circulating Index.

Thank you.

Hey @afromac, an IIP number (122) has been assigned, and this proposal has been queued to go live on snapshot later today at 1800 UTC.

Snapshot here

1 Like

Thank you @sixtykeys. Appreciate the help getting this done.

2 Likes

Late to the game here but chiming in with support of this proposal!
Speeding up the process of launching products on other chains by reducing governance hurdles is great. Added bonus of increasing distribution of existing products to other chains :raised_hands:

4 Likes