Managing Legacy & Current Credit Vaults

Ideas
1

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
2

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