Hey all, you guys raise good objections. I’ll provide the extra color I can here on the Treasury Committee side and @reganbozman can give us some more insight on the KuCoin side.
Some answers:
- The DPI and USDT being sent to KuCoin is strictly a loan . Half of the loaned amount is to be returned to the Community Treasury after 6 months. The remaining half is to be returned after 12 months. Any other funds left over/not used in the DPI market making will be returned to the Community Treasury.
- The quantity required by KuCoin is 150k USD worth of DPI and USDT. 200k USD worth of DPI and 200k USD worth of INDEX was sent to the Exchange Listing wallet to account for any price volatility before the KuCoin listing is complete.
- The Exchange Listings portion of the GWG budget is meant to cover exchange listing fees, market making fees, costs for legal opinions, and marketing. More details here.
- DPI has rallied considerably in the past 24 hours. When the funding was being considered yesterday the USD value of DPI in the Exchange Listing wallet was close to 185k USD. The INDEX value was close to 60k USD. Even if the INDEX + DPI was sold for USDT, we would not have reached the required 150k USDT.
Some thoughts:
Process and accountability
We should likely tolerate lower levels of transparency in specific working groups, and expect higher levels of transparency from higher level budgeting organizations. In turn we should also expect higher levels of flexibility in specific working groups and lower levels of flexibility in budgeting organizations. It strikes me as odd to request the GWG provide a loan to the Exchange Listing wallet in response to KuCoin, but in retrospect I think that would have made the most sense.
I agree a lack of transparency around this process makes the job of forecasting and budgeting for the Index Coop more difficult. In a bull market some of this less careful behavior is OK, but I agree that it undermines our efforts to build a sturdy ship to float during a bear market.
If it’s any reassurance from a process oversight perspective, I proposed the above solution and received consent from other members of the Treasury Committee (@anon10525910 & @DarkForestCapital) before moving forward.
The IIP-27 vs. this funding process
No one asked this, but I thought it would be good to clarify: the DPI loan required an IIP because the funds being requested were in the Community Treasury. The INDEX loan above did not require an IIP because the funds being requested are under the control of the Treasury Committee. One of the goals of the IIP process is that any request of funds from the Community Treasury must be attached to an IIP.