Conclave Treasury Allocation Discussion

I’ve been in favor of converting some of the funds to ETH for the gains, but also because many of the proposals require ETH.

Will stay out of the discussion on when and how much, though - my trade history is abysmal.


I am strongly against this proposal and the route it seems to be heading in the thread below.

I have been in DEFI for almost two years, part of a DEFI project team for most of that time, involved in treasury allocation discussions and DAO management throughout.

And in that time I have seen projects, both NFT and otherwise, get absolutely rekt by thinking they are god level traders and know how to invest treasury funds.

BattleFly is one example. They amassed several $million and had a runway of years. “Invested” it all in $MAGIC towards the top ($3-5) …, now that investment is worth almost 80% less and runway is months, not years. I’ve seen similarly bad investment decisions from major DEFI projects too, SUSHI being one great example (Back when the DAO voted to use Nomi’s $14m ETH to buy SUSHI). DAOs are notoriously risk heavy with their thinking because that’s how they manage their own funds.

I am up for a discussion about yield opportunities - no reason that USDC shouldn’t be earning 10% APY if invested in a safe way (as safe as DEFI allows anyway).

But choosing a volatile asset for anything more than a token allocation of the fund is gambling with the project’s future. I am not sure what benefits there are to balance this risk, besides potentially securing some ETH for project use at a price we all believe is reasonable.

If this does proceed for operational purposes, I would limit the exposure to 7-10% max (so $10~$15k), and monitor usage as we go.

This is exactly how we risk dying for real.

Accumulate for what? A bull run that might not ever happen? We have “accumulated” $150k thanks to the Two which surely secures a solid runway worth protecting. This is not an investment fund.

This is the point, nobody here is a trader with a flawless record.


We should have some exposure to ETH and not be 100% in USDC. That part you seem to partially agree with and it’s a starting point to work with.

I also agree we shouldn’t move to 100% in ETH and that we are not in a rush to do so.

Exactly we aren’t going 100% ETH and also we aren’t converting any % near ATHs in anticipation of a bullrun.

We have opened a forum to discuss potential targets or area we can agree would be good place to convert a %.

How much of that % & where are possible decisions to make and we would certainly be best to hammer that down to a reasonable / agreeable amount so the proposal doesn’t seem so extreme or risky as you pointed out the risks in fully converting over.

Possibly the word accumulation was a trigger word and we can avoid that. As was the idea of converting 100% into ETH. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some exposure.

I do also like your idea of collecting some yield on some of our USDC so it isn’t just sitting still. There are inherit risks with that as well if it’s through decentralized protocols and of course centralized as well. That may be better as a separate proposal.

Either way, @chimaera this convo was one @hersilence.eth & I dreaded having day 1 in our first term for these reasons. We didn’t want ‘experts’ to come out of the woodwork and start proposing we invest in this, invest in that etc. We knew the can of worms this convo would have and were biding our time before opening it.

That being said let us remember why @Icculus brought this up in the first place. Some of our payments have been in Ethereum. We may have other proposals that operate in/require transacting in ETH and we should have some in reserve instead of converting over.

You feel 10% is the max. Others seem to want to have at least 20% exposure. I think we have a range to consider on how much would be converted & we should focus on coming to agreement around there.

1 Like

Are there places that offer 10% yield on USDC? If so, are they reputable enough to be considered less risky than converting 10% of the treasury to ETH at its current entry point?

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the gambling part - I’m just not sure yield opportunities aren’t.

At the end of the day (and despite my personal feelings), I think there’s good enough arguments to allocate some percentage. The obvious suggestion would be to vote on it: None, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%.

1 Like

To be honest I don’t think we ‘need exposure’ at all. I’m not Bobo (I have a fair amount of ETH exposure myself), but I don’t think it’s worth the risk for a project’s longevity to be exposed to volatility. But, if we need some for operational purposes then sure it makes sense to buy some at a price we’re comfortable with.

@TheTwins reputation and risk in DEFI are quite subjective … In AAVE you won’t get 10% yield, but you can on Convex - but then you are exposed to semi-algo stables (eg MIM). So there’s always a balance between ‘safe’ and ‘productive’. If we want to go the yield route I can help present some options.

1 Like

Why would we die by betting on the token that supports the entire project. @chimaera you seem to be missing the point that if ETH goes to 0, wagdie goes to 0. Being in USDC is an insult to the platform the project lives and breathes on. Also your attacks on individuals commenting on ideas based on the proposers suggestion isn’t very constructive.

We aren’t betting on $MAGIC like idiots, we are betting that ETH will long term provide growth to the treasury. Nouns DAO is 100% ETH. So if that gives you an example of one of the best managed operations being fully risk on in your eyes.

You know nothing John Snow.

1 Like

Lots of spirited discussion around this as I expected.

@brennen_eth I agree with your principals on a personal level but personally I believe any allocation > 20% is too aggressive for a treasury of our size. Nouns is a great example but their treasury size is SO large they can easily tolerate a 50% drop and not notice.

What would be the impact to the conclave if our treasury was worth 60K tomorrow? I think it would have a significant negative impact.

@Dontfeedthewolf For a decision like this I don’t believe price targets are that necessary. I assume if a proposal like this were to pass the treasury would simply execute it.

@chimaera I respect your caution. Treasury mismanagement plagues many protocols. Heavy allocations into tokens like MAGIC or SUSHI is an extreme example though. I would push back as hard as I could against any similar type of purchase. I don’t believe any governance token is wise to hold.

Safe but substantial yield is also difficult right now. I am personally not a fan of MIM at all and yields in Aave, Curve, Compound hover around 1% which to me isn’t worth the protocol risk to earn $1500 a year.

I still personally think a 10-20% allocation (10-20E at current prices) is useful for operational expenses that need to be paid in ETH with the benefit of possibly increasing the overall value of the treasury in the future.


PS I love you @chimaera I mean not disrespect!


Any discussions about yield and other ideas can be separate proposals. Including my own suggestions of trying to convert more over time.

Instead, it’s looking more and more like this proposal will have best success with a focus on 1 time conversion into ETH upon passing with range from 10-20%.

1 Like

Nah none taken, though I definitely was not intending to ‘attack’ anyone’s view points. All are valuable, even at times of disagreement.

I’ve nothing against an allocation into ETH for operational purposes and for a small level of exposure.

0-10-20% options would suffice for a vote I think and I won’t throw my toys out if any of those are selected :black_heart:

Agree on the yield front - may not be worth the risk and should be a separate discussion anyway.


Proposal voting options: 0 10% 20% abstain.

Purpose: operational expenses and to have some exposure to Ethereum.

Seems imperative we avoid any discussions about trading, yield farming/defi, or mention of Ethereum’s price movement.

Any such discussions would be better in future/ other proposals as the purpose of this one is made clear without diving into those other areas.


What if we dropped 50%? Would we still have story, and community development? Did we not lift off the ground without the dao? Obviously we had to purchase the mayc and beeple and cryptoad some how but would it just cause us to be more cautious and selective in how the funds are allocated.

these are more thought provoking than needing responses or answers to all the questions. But a very hard conversation I agree. With the fed still being hawkish and some more down turn expected in the market till the end of this year beginning of next I know timing the market isn’t ideal but I think we can find some good buys here in the next two weeks. With the whole merge coming up it could be possible to play into the merge a little.

But based on @chimaeras thoughts and others I think capping at 20% seems right

Guess I should of read this first. I retract my statements :slight_smile:

If we use a responsible amount of leverage (10x, 20x?) we can allocate only 20% of our funds but capture a notional value multiple times higher. This would balance our desired position size while not leaving any long term potential for gains off the table?

I’m only kidding. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Seconding the vote for converting 0%, 10%, or 20% to ETH, for now. I think this is something we should reevaluate on at least a quarterly basis.

Upon reading the initial post, my gut reaction was “of course - let’s ride or die!” so I thank @chimaera for exercising caution. Indeed, projects have gone belly up due to overexposure to a volatile token (DefiKingdoms is perhaps an even ore dramatic example). With that said, I’d be open to more substantial ETH purchases if it continues downward. The growth potential may be worth the risk at the right levels.

As for stable yield, I haven’t found anything worthwhile on mainnet. We could do something like the sUSD/DAI/USDT/USDC Curve pool on Optimism via Beefy for 13% APY but I’m not sure how long those incentives will last and that opens us up to risk from two protocols and an L2.


Yeap keep it simple I like those options.

1 Like

Discussion has moved to Proposal here, simplified version for For, Against, Abstain voting with 15% allocation

Proposal has moved here: Conclave Treasury Allocation - #9 by Dontfeedthewolf