[TCP] PCV Diversification Tribe

I was on the fence about CVs at first but agree that if you’re not being paid until after the fact, the output is really all that matters.

With regard to timing, do you think we can derisk a portion of the PCV before an investment policy statement is written to allocate a small % to a stablecoin like DAI? I’m fairly confident that the community wants some % allocation to stablecoins to derisk the PCV as soon as possible. We can start with a conservative stablecoin allocation % and as the WG puts together PCV crypto asset allocation and risk management framework, we can adjust the PCV crypto asset portfolio weightings as needed. These ETH price movements can be fast and violent so I’m more inclined to move quickly on an action item like this while the PCV is overcollateralized by over 250%.

As the framework for PCV diversification is built, we can deposit stables into a lending protocol temporarily. Then, as your WG refines its vision for PCV diversification, we can rotate those stablecoin assets from lending protocol deposits to use cases like your idea for creating stablecoin pools to facilitate market making.


@bruno I hope at least you will know each other as a team:-)

1 Like

I like everything I am reading here, and I appreciate that you think of the CVs as creating an undesirable precedent. I support 100% this position.

1 Like

I think that the summary of skillsets in the original post by Bruno is adequate at this stage. At least the community knows that the team members have relevant experience.
Having said that, I would ask for more detailed information if the WG or task is very specific - so match the scope and focus of a WG with the depth of credentials of a potential member.

1 Like

Good ideas! We will share a more comprehensive analysis about it today.

hahaha yes, with only a few days of working together seems that I know them for a long time.

1 Like

I think the answer to this question will be natural when we share our analysis and community start to review and contribute. If we feel that an additional member could be important, we can add without a problem.

Great discussion. I have already endorsed @Eswak before :slightly_smiling_face:

Also, I think, if required, its ok to hire someone external to the group if he/she volunteers to do so and brings the desired skills. Not everyone has the time to go through discourse or discord frequently. Also, including Joey or Sebastain in the PCV working group can be nice. Because PCV diversification should be the highest priority atm of anything. And if anyone who knows better about the technical aspects of PCV is @joey or @sebastian. This reduces the information assymetry dramatically. The WG leader can still be @Bruno though, if all agrees. In this way, the working group can maintain autonomous status while the founder and community being represented. Other WGs may not require the founders unless deemed necessary.

All I am stressing is that it is vital to have optimal mix of talents such that the desired purpose is achieved without conflicts of interests. Normally in a committee of board of directors, the corporate tends to have between 3-5 members.

I beleive the scope is not very clear yet, but I would say capping up to 5 members.


Having @joey or @sebastian as members of the group in a reference capacity would be ideal. Some kind of weekly, or biweekly check in with either of them I mean. This in conjunction with discord/discourse activity would be ideal.


Yup. That could be agreed upon.

I am getting more into behavioral aspects later. If by some means, the communication gap between founders and working groups exist, then we cannot deny that later it can give basis to two camps - community group and founder group.

1 Like

We probably want to try to avoid that. Having a divergent set of values is detrimental to the community and our ecosystem.
Communication is key, so that the interests of the core team and the wider community remains aligned.


This resonates with me. I think a DAO needs a lot of shaping and guidance during the early phases from the core leadership group, founding team. Large companies typically refer to these roles as project sponsors which act to remove barriers and guide the team forwards.

The working group model and even grant based models all rely on guidance and input for the core team at any protocol. Otherwise, the risk is that the deliverables are out of touch with the community and the vision for the protocol, and do not get implemented.

Frequent, public and clear communication being put forward by @Bruno is a fantastic solution for DAO engagement and already we can see there is a vibrant community forming, which is really exciting to see.


Hey All, we shared an update of our analysis here: PCV Diversification Tribe - Report 1

We are open for feedbacks and contributions!

We tried to address this question in the post cited above.

The interaction with the core team is key to the success of this initiative. Since the beginning of this group we are talking to them and exchanging ideas. We will be connected with the team and seek for convergence.

Communication is our priority. The base of a successful and engaging DAO is transparency and the free flow of information.

1 Like

This would be great to check in with the broader vision of the protocole. Actually having 1 core team member or 1 wider team member with wider visibility per WG is absolutely necessary to help keep the groups true to purpose & long term goals.


1 question to the PCV diversification tribe here.

As we are not managing a hedge fund, it is the controlled funds of a project. Thus i believe it is healthier to see this as a budgeting excercise rather than profit generating excercise as most of the suggestions & ideas out there are built around. This budgeting will likely to impact how the rest of the WG’s will work and with what kind of resources.

Should we put the WG’s on a roadmap and start with the first budgeting between WG’s needs on the diversification tribe, as all the WG goals will give way to valuable assets & investments that will be part (or should be accounted for in the beginning) of the diversification excercise.