Status: Draft
Authors: @Eswak
Hi everyone! I have been working on “meta-governance” recently, meaning that our DAO will be able to use TRIBE to proxy-vote in other DAOs using the governance tokens held in the PCV, or more generally “play the game” of other protocols in a way that favor the Tribe. As of today, we hold AAVE, ANGLE, BAL, COMP, CRV, CVX, INDEX, and TOKE. I will release each meta-governance updates separately (1 token/protocol each time) to create a clean forum thread to discuss the proposed strategy each time, and introduce new contracts in the system gradually.
Context
The DAO currently deploy 54,697 ETH (148M$) on Aave, 3,324,059 RAI (10M$), 16M FEI, and holds 1174 stkAAVE (~186k$).
Aave is a lending protocol, not sure if we need an introduction here, it’s one of the most famous DeFi protocols
Summary
- Allow permissionless movement of stkAAVE farmed by our RAI PCVDeposit and ETH PCVDeposit to a new stkAAVE delegator contract
- The stkAAVE delegator contract does an on-chain delegation to a target address. Other than this, it just holds stkAAVE tokens.
- stkAAVE holdings will be reported in the Collateralization Ratio Oracle and visible on the analytics page.
- The DAO and OA Timelock can change the stkAAVE delegatee.
- Initial delegatee of the protocol’s stkAAVE tokens will be Index’s metagovernance committee multisig. The Index multisig votes are per INDEX snapshot when quorum is reached, and if not, then the meta-governance committee votes on the communities’ behalf. The TribeDAO holds 100,000 INDEX, which are almost enough to reach quorum.
Motivation
Our stkAAVE tokens are currently sitting idle. It would be nice to be able to use the protocol’s stkAAVE holdings on votes important for the TribeDAO in the future.
Specification
Delegation is a simple on-chain delegate(address)
call on the stkAAVE token.
The stkAAVE delegator contract can also unstake stkAAVE back to AAVE, and stake AAVE to stkAAVE.
Voting
The proposal will use simple choice voting. Voting options :
- Yes, use stkAAVE as described
- No, more discussions needed