# PROPOSED: IIP-123 - Finance Nest Autonomy Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal\ **Tags:** IIP\ **Created:** [10 January 2022 22:54 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/proposed-iip-123-finance-nest-autonomy-act/3646 "2022-01-10T22:54:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![sixtykeys](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/gov.indexcoop.com/sixtykeys/32/3632_2.png) [@sixtykeys](https://gov.indexcoop.com/u/sixtykeys)\ **Post date:** [14 January 2022 14:45 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/proposed-iip-123-finance-nest-autonomy-act/3646/6 "2022-01-14T14:45:28Z")
Hey @Matthew_Graham , I am fully FOR more finance nest autonomy but I would like to give a few recommendations from a governance perspective here: _Operation & Investment Accounts_ - Similar to the FLI products, I would like to see the IIP Process used in-order to whitelist any protocols (on a per chain basis) that IC Capital will be deployed productively on. As well as the ability for Index Council to have any capital already deployed, be removed if any security risks become apparent. - Ops & Investment account (on a per chain basis) should request funding for the accounts via the IIP Process, for any amount in excess of $250,000. _Crisis Management_ - Use of community funds for crisis management should receive sign off from at least 3 Index Council members, via a transparent process before being utilized. _Whitelist - Protocol Fund Deployments_ - I would like to see some inclusion criteria for any protocols that might be whitelisted, in order to ensure maximum safety of IC Capital. Criteria that could be used here include, the amount of time a protocol has been active (+1 year), ensuring sufficient audits have been carried out on the protocol, and no hacks or security exploits have occurred on the protocol. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/proposed-iip-123-finance-nest-autonomy-act/3646)._