To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of all proposals wanting to work with/on/for TrueFi Protocol, I propose the following detailed vetting criteria by a paid 3rd party. If no job exsists then one needs to be created. An “Underwriter” of sorts for proposals.
Depending on the proposal, some, or all may apply.
1. Team Evaluation
1.1 Background and Experience:
Professional History(Score: 0-10): Verify the professional history of each team member, including their roles in previous blockchain and DeFi projects and what their team roles will be in the proposal
Reputation(Score: 0-10): Assess the team’s reputation within the blockchain community through industry references and public endorsements.
Expertise(Score: 0-10): Confirm that team members possess relevant skills in blockchain development, smart contract coding, cryptography, and financial systems that benefit TrueFi
1.2 Transparency and Communication:
Public Presence(Score: 0-10): Evaluate the team’s presence on social media platforms, project forums, and community channels.
Communication Frequency(Score: 0-10): Look for regular updates and transparent communications about their past projects.
Response to Queries(Score: 0-10): Assess the team’s responsiveness to questions and feedback from the community and stakeholders.
1.3 Security Practices:
Audit History(Score: 0-10): Review the history of security audits conducted by reputable firms on the team’s previous projects.
Bug Bounty Programs(Score: 0-10): Check for the implementation of bug bounty programs to incentivize the discovery of vulnerabilities.
Security Incidents(Score: 0-10): Investigate any past security incidents and the team’s response and mitigation strategies.
2. Technical Evaluation
2.1 Smart Contract Audits:
Audit Reports(Score: 0-10): Ensure that the protocol’s smart contracts have undergone audits by reputable third-party firms.
Unresolved Issues(Score: 0-10): Review past audit reports for any unresolved vulnerabilities or issues and how the team addressed .
2.2 Code Quality and Documentation:
Codebase(Score: 0-10): Analyze the quality and readability of their past project codebase, preferring open-source code that allows for community review.
Documentation(Score: 0-10): Ensure comprehensive and clear documentation is available for developers and users.
2.3 Innovation and Feasibility:
Technical Innovation(Score: 0-10): Evaluate the uniqueness and innovation of the proposed solution.
Scalability(Score: 0-10): Assess the technical feasibility and scalability of the protocol to handle future growth.
3. Economic and Tokenomics Evaluation
3.1 Revenue and Sustainability:
Revenue Model(Score: 0-10): Analyze the proposed revenue model and its alignment with the project’s long-term goals.
Sustainability Plan(Score: 0-10): Evaluate the protocol’s plan for maintaining liquidity and any incentivizing participation.
4. Legal and Regulatory Considerations
4.1 Compliance:
Regulatory Landscape(Score: 0-10): If required, ensure the proposal complies with relevant local and international regulations.
Legal Advisors(Score: 0-10): Verify the presence of qualified legal advisors within the team.
4.2 Risk Management:
Regulatory Risks(Score: 0-10): Assess the team’s approach to managing legal and regulatory risks.
Contingency Plans(Score: 0-10): Look for contingency plans to address potential regulatory changes.
5. Community and Ecosystem
5.1 Community Engagement:
Active Participation(Score: 0-10): Evaluate the level of active participation and feedback from the community.
Support Systems(Score: 0-10): Assess the support systems in place for community engagement.
5.2 Partnerships and Integrations:
Existing Partnerships(Score: 0-10): Review existing partnerships with other projects and platforms.
Ecosystem Integration(Score: 0-10): Consider the protocol’s integration into the broader DeFi ecosystem and how their own products or services align.
6. Financial Evaluation
6.1 Funding and Budget:
Funding Sources(Score: 0-10): Analyze the hours and team size along with any other funding sources or projects they are working on.
Budget Allocation(Score: 0-10): Review the budget allocation for development, marketing, security, and other critical areas.
6.2 ROI and Risk Assessment:
Return on Investment(Score: 0-10): Evaluate the potential return on investment for stakeholders.
Risk Analysis(Score: 0-10): Conduct a thorough risk analysis considering market conditions and project milestones.
7. Proposal Documentation
7.1 Clarity and Completeness:
Proposal Structure(Score: 0-10): Ensure the proposal is well-structured, detailed, and easy to understand.
Comprehensive Coverage(Score: 0-10): Verify that all aspects of the project are comprehensively covered in the documentation.
7.2 Milestones and Deliverables:
Feasibility(Score: 0-10): Review the proposed milestones and deliverables for feasibility.
Alignment(Score: 0-10): Assess alignment with the project’s overall goals and timelines.
8 GitHub Repository:
Access and Activity(Score: 0-10): Request access to the team’s GitHub repository to evaluate the development activity, code quality, and version control practices.
Community Contributions(Score: 0-10): Check for contributions from the community and how the team manages open-source collaboration.
9. TrueFi Protocol Understanding
9.1 Comprehensive Knowledge (Score: 0-10): The team must demonstrate a thorough understanding of TrueFi’s current protocol structure. This includes the ability to articulate the nuances of TrueFi’s mechanisms, governance, risk management, and integrations within the DeFi ecosystem.
Independent Vetting Agent
To ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest, an independent vetting agent will be engaged. This agent will apply the above criteria, providing unbiased assessments and recommendations scoring each criteria from 0-10.
Based on the aggregated scores and the documentation provided by the agent, the well-informed DAO can engage in a professional discussion to facilitate an educated and informed on-chain vote.
By implementing these vetting criteria, TrueFi will aim to partner with teams that meet TrueFi’s high standards of expertise, transparency, and commitment, ensuring the successful delivery of a secure, ever evolving DeFi protocol.
Additionally, I believe that by involving an independent vetting agent, teams will gain an objective assessment of their proposal’s alignment with TrueFi’s standards. This process should be expected to lead to more accurate, professional high quality proposal requests, potentially reducing costs, thereby covering the cost of the vetting agent itself.
Lets not lose what we have, lets get serious and level up moving forward!
