Proposing a Treasury + Product Working Group

This proposal is being put forward by @Matthew_Graham @MrMadila @overanalyser @verto0912

What are you proposing?

We are proposing the funding of a Treasury & Product Working Group for an initial 3 month phase ending on 22nd June with the view of extending beyond, subject to community approval.

What is the core problem(s) you want to solve?

The core problem we are trying to solve is to put a structure in place for managing our capital and maintaining our products. We also need a core focused group of people working to manage our products and enhance their useability within the DeFi ecosystem.

Why is this worth addressing today?

When DFC took on the treasury committee role, the intention (set out in this post) was to improve transparency and innovate around the treasury and tokenomics. We have since published our first financial report, communicated our goals and will soon implement a smart treasury. Looking forward, we need to distribute tokens to the community, fund growth, mitigate risks and protect our purchasing power for the long term.

For our products to realise their full potential, we need to maximise their usability, market appeal and find a way to make them productive in a safe manner. Having data to shape our decisions is vital to the success of Index Coop.

How will you address it?

Given the skill sets and the type of people involved, we noticed most people interested in Treasury are also interested in data and improving our products useability within the ecosystem. Therefore, we are opting to combine the Treasury and Product into a single working group.

What impact will this project have?

  • Develop structures for diversifying and managing the treasury.
  • Incorporate our products across the DeFi ecosystem improving their usability.
  • Understand how the assets within our products can be used to generate yield
  • Work team analysis supporting DG2

Working Group Leader(s)

  • Product Lead: Over Analyser
  • Treasury Lead: DFC
    • Treasury co-lead: Matthew Graham

As DFC will be taking on the role of MVI community methodologist, it is expected that the lead role will be handed over in time.

Request for Funding

Proposed Budget:

Contributor rewards - as per Treasury Committee framework (impact, effort, alignment with goals). A provisional budget is shown below:

  • $5k over 3 months for smart contract work/gas costs and other miscellaneous items

Organization - How will it work?

What will you be doing?

Review Stage

Ongoing Work

  • Monthly Financial Report
  • Extrinsic & Intrinsic productivity
  • Apply clear, consistent, professional accounting methods
  • Liquidity Mining analysis and associated publications
  • Work team analysis supporting DG2

Discussion Stage

  • KPI Rewards Program - Early Draft
  • Contributor Rewards Currency Choice
  • Investment Account Strategy
  • Everyday Account Financial Forecasting

In Draft

  • OTC INDEX Offering
  • Potential Strategic Raise
  • Contributor Token Ownership Plan
  • Investment Account Funding Allocation

How will you interface with the community?

  • Governance Forum Posts
  • Weekly Presentation during Org Work Session Meeting
  • Index Coop account publications
  • #Organization, #Treasury and #Product dedicated channels in Discord


We are committed to Index Coop principles

We are committed to serving the entire Index Coop with our work.

We are committed to open, rapid communication: we know that clear, constant, public communication lifts up the entire Index Coop community. We are committed to this style of communication.

Shared learnings: We will share our progress and learnings with the entire community. We will ensure that anything created is accessible beyond our own tenure for future generations of Indexers to access & build on.

Intellectual honesty: We are committed to growth and improvement. We are open to feedback and will use feedback to improve our work for the benefit of the entire Coop community.

We are committed to making Index Coop a welcoming, fun, and engaging community to work in!

  • For -Create the Treasury and Product Working Group as outlined
  • Against - Do not create the working group as outlined

0 voters


super exciting to see burgeoning focus on Treasury and Product :raised_hands:

I started to review and take notes, and got stuck on a core question:

Why does it make sense to combine Treasury & Product into a single group?

These seem to be quite different functions with different mandates.

I notice the proposal does state

Excited for this convo and to learn where ya’ll are coming from! I have not voted yet.

I personally don’t have strong feelings on it, and if we can be more agile by creating more groups then possibly that’s the way to go.

I know the guys that worked on the fee menu and liquidity mining felt their powers would be better combined as there is a lot of overlap, and felt it makes sense to do it this way during the first 3 month trial at least.

Certainly from the standpoint of covering the same topics in multiple meetings and in separate chats/channels it makes sense to combine this way. What would be the push back against it?

1 Like

Seems like it would make more sense to call this Treasury WG and pick 2 given the vast majority of items are from the treasury.

The idea that there is synergy between product and treasury because the money comes from the treasury is kind of moot. Why not treasury + growth, treasury + analytics?

The idea that we should be trying to get everyone working on “this stuff” (is no one else?) on the same leadership structure across such broad functional areas doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. If it does, I’d like to similarly nominate myself and think we should combine growth. Growth, product, + treasury WG (GPTWG).

It seems like Verto and OA are doing more product stuff and you and Matt are doing more Treasury stuff. Being a leader of a working group doesn’t mean that you can’t work on a separate function with some of your time…

I’m also a bit curious as it seems there is a treasury committee already. How does that play in?

Also curious how you think the working group structure ties in here. This seems more like putting together a team than any clear mandate or goal around your activity. Are there metrics to impact? Is there a budget beyond $5k?

The Treasury Committee was created in October 2020 with a specific mandate to spearhead rewards distributions for the Coop. This remains the case to this day.

My read of a “Treasury Working Group” is that it would focus on higher-level needs around managing protocol resources (stealing the phrase from “DeFi Citadels”)

1 Like

Voted AGAINST simply because I believe these should be two separate working groups. I am strongly FOR there being a Treasury WG and a Product WG. These WG are iterative and I believe that now that we have made the decision to move in the WG direction, the best route is to get them up and running and iterate!


Seems like we have some consensus here, so we’ll split the groups into to separate working groups. :white_check_mark:

Renumeration - The post proposed rewards would be determined by the Treasury Committee. Continue the status quo with no change to how people who currently work on this content are getting paid.

Do we pivot here and copy AWG model ? :confused:

Thinking North Star Metrics - I am going to ask @gregdocter, please help, what should we do on this front :question: :question: