As an extension of a recent post - New Approach for TrueFi TVL Growth and Risk Management - I want to look at creating a TFIP for a small amount of funding buffer to be sent to the Truefi Foundation to cover a situation where the Foundation may internally manage the administration of legacy credit vaults that have been set up by Cicada, whose contract effectively ends at the last of June or early very July.
Give the community backlash against current service providers, there is a more significant change that Cicada will not be able to secure any continuation mandate of its services to Truefi.
Current Vaults have a maturity of
Gravity Team (1 of 2 vaults): Jun 4, 2025
Wincent: Jun 25, 2025
Wincent Investment Fund: Jul 2, 2025
Fasanara: Aug 21, 2025
Gravity Team (2 of 2 Vaults): Feb 5, 2026
I’d ask the Foundation and Cicada to not renew vaults and for those with funds to ask the borrowers to return funds before the maturity date and to remind lenders to retrieve the returned funds from the vaults.
Since Fasanara Vault has been at zero, if there is a way to deprecate this vault in the next couple of months, this may be best.
The type of funding for a suspension or offboarding of this wouldn’t be much, and I’d propose a funding buffer (not to be confused with fee/expenses) of around $35,000 in TRU tokens to the foundation via Tally to memorialise this kind of mandate to the Foundation.
2 Likes
Thanks for bringing this up, Suvicrypto. Actually, thanks for your continued engagement overall!
I think what you’ve proposed here is both fair and timely.
To be honest, this type of work should falls within the Foundation’s core responsibilities, especially as we continue moving toward a more community-driven underwriting model. From a risk, marketing, and UI/UX standpoint, it’s essential to deprecate inactive or unsupported vaults and ensure the platform only surfaces active, well-maintained products.
That said, I do think there’s value in formalizing the Foundation’s ability to step in as administrator for legacy vaults where needed — particularly in cases where a service provider’s mandate isn’t renewed. If that includes a modest funding buffer to cover any unexpected overhead, I’d be supportive in principle, as long as the scope is clearly defined.
Appreciate you surfacing this — happy to help refine a TFIP if it moves forward.
1 Like
I think the reasonable scope for the foundation to step in as an administrator of current vaults is where any third party manager or advisor of such vaults no longer has a clear advisory or management mandate as you say (such as non-renewal of a service contract).
I’d like to specify two sets of situations where the foundation would step in:
-
Where there are non-defaulted current vaults which a manager/advisor’s mandate is not renewed and such vaults carry over the manager’s mandate period.
-
In the case of defaults in loans, or previously defaulted loans in recovery or restructuring, and there is concern over the manager/advisors’s ability or economics or conflict of interest issues to manage such process.
For a TFIP in this case, I’d like to limit the scope to situation 1). This is more straightforward on projecting costs and process to administer the vaults.
Generally, I’d like for this scope of work/actions to be generally for the foundation:
A. To inform borrowers that the credit manager/advisor who assisted in creating and placing the vault link on the Truefi platform has not had their mandate renewed 10 calendar days before end of the earlier of:
i. The stated end date of the mandate or
ii. The end of the last sablier stream associated with such mandate (if any).
And to make a formal communications line between The Foundation and Vault Borrower.
B. If the vault has more than a small amount of loans taken, to also get an update from the borrower of its financial situation, and determine if such vault would be deemed riskier than previous circumstances if applicable.
C. At the foundation’s discretion for these specific vaults, to move such vaults on the Truefi UI to a “legacy” or “closed/matured/deprecated” section.
D. Provide a timely reminder to the borrowers and lenders of upcoming vault maturities to return and retrieve funds.
E. To assist with any borrower to offboard (if needed) from Truefi Platform
Others-
As I have read before, Truefi used to be a community-driven underwriting model, with borrower requests prior to the end of 2022. It can be good to examine it and see wha the New Truefi can take from the old days.