[TFIP-19] TrueFi Forward Vision and Operational Expense Request

[vandynathan]

Background:

TrueFi was originally an ecosystem built around the stablecoin TUSD as one of the first stablecoins in crypto from the 2017/2018 vintage. In 2020, TrueFi pivoted as an ecosystem to house credit-related vaults and these vaults allowed for borrowers (mainly crypto trading firms) to interact with lenders for stablecoin funds. By 2022 it was one of the largest protocols of its kind with peers like Maple Finance and Clearpool. However, from spring to winter 2022, saw a near annihilation of these credit-linked markets with bankruptcies such as 3AC, Celsius, Babel, Orthogonal, and Alameda/FTX. Many of these have also been tied with strong accusations of fraud and misrepresentation to its now claimants. TrueFi’s active TVL shrank to near zero by early 2023.

Since about September 2023, Truefi (or its vaults) have been used for the following, with a Real World Asset (“RWA”) theme:

• Adapt3r Whitelisted T-Bill Vault (housed at app.archblock.com): 13.5 million USD

• Kryptonim Whitelisted Credit: 0.5 million USD

• Gravity Team/Wincent/Fasanara (Cicada related): 2.1 million USD

Revenues that have been generated or collected from the vaults are currently at sub few thousand dollars.

Yet, hundreds of thousands of dollars (in fact, millions) of value in stablecoins and Tru tokens have been paid out to develop the vault technology and on efforts to bring users to the platform.

Nonetheless, The DAO has an opportunity to take a competitive segment of the RWA market, and we are already excited by the discussions that we have had with service providers. TrueFi has the name, product, and partners to evolve in the right direction.

Moving Forward - Strategy:

While RWA has immense potential in its next iterations to come there are many question marks just how the adoption will look like and more importantly when it will come.

How to deal with the uncertainty? The first solution is to build and house products that allow for enhancing the user experience with RWA brought on-chain but are also not RWA-exclusive. Before, Truefi was considered a CeDeFi protocol and with loan managers and such, there was a emphasis on the Ce (Centralised) portion, but now for flexibility, there’s much merit to place more emphasis on the De (decentralised) portion.

The board has thought of plans to create enhanced versions of innovative products that can fit the bill, with manageable costs to build it. As the plans may be materially economically impactful, specific plans are yet to be divulged. Through the onboarded members of the Foundaiton we will construct a more detailed roadmap that will encompass this vision.

We have already been connecting with strategic investors and partners to curate this roadmap, and the board is keen and open to working with any and new counterparts especially in RWA to find/create ecosystems that can net or potentially can net significant value and utility for TRU holders.

Of course, we need to find ways to revive the community. Forum participants are limited. Discord has been turned off for discussion. Twitter has been at a standstill. We want to revive these and revive the awareness of Truefi to the crypto community.

Treasury of the DAO must also be actively managed as well, as expenses are borne in USD (or stablecoin equivalent) and there is uncertainty of payments with TRU price fluctuations. The current treasury looks to consist mostly of yet to be minted Truefi tokens and gives rise to significant payment premiums potentially paid to counterparts and service providers.

Next Steps:

Starting on the right footing

The DAO (and the foundation as a BVI entity) should gain some legal clarity on its activities. What is viewed as grey, white, or black zones would be helpful. Legal advice should be sought for its current state and help set guidelines for future activities. We have already had advice set for some counterparty onboarding (“KYC”) and anti-money laundering procedures.

The DAO also should seek to get an update of the financial standing both from a historical and current perspective. For example, versus how much of tokens being expended, how much revenue is being collected. There is also looking at how to deal with legacy assets such as funds in vaults potentially.

The DAO Foundation should also ensure that assets that belong to the DAO and in the name of the Foundation have been properly handed over. These assets include multi-signature wallets and its assets, vault operations, websites and social media channels. These are noted on the following Tally votes:

Tally | TrueFi | Assignment Agreement between Archblock Inc. and TrueFi...

Tally | TrueFi | [TFIP-7] Decentralize admin and owner rights to smart...

But this is not an exhaustive list of items that would need to be audited or be in a handover process of the DAO and in the name of the Foundation.

Expanding headcount and outsourcing for the benefit of DAO stakeholders:

Currently, there are only the 2 directors, Ferengi and Nathan on the payroll as the Foundation Directors alongside the 2 community moderators. Cicada as a borrower introducer is the only other entity being paid as Wallfacer has not had a 2H 2024 contract passed by vote. Expenses are required for:

1. Legal Advice from Outside BVI Counsel
2. On-chain and financial auditing
3. Additional Community or Outreach person
4. Operations and Administrative Coordinator
5. Day to day website user interface (“UI”) and user experience (“UX”) tech managers
6. Smart contract maintenance (could be in conjunction with 5)
7. New product development from technology standpoint
8. New product or counterparts liaison specialist
9. Compliance related personnel (from onboarding service providers, projects, and making sure that the DAO Foundation acts in a compliant manner)
10. Additional directors

Of course, there are significant costs to this to get on the right footing and to start expanding. More details on activities to be pursued are also noted on the budget below.

Budget – Financial Overview

1. 6 months of operating expenses, covering essential areas like governance, operational costs, and community initiatives. The proposal also includes setting a budget for future expenses and strategic development at an estimated 1,175,000 USD

2. The proposed budget will take a ~30% earmark in TRU’s token price at the execution of the proposal before being swapped into stablecoins. This is to consider price fluctuations before the TRU to USDC/USDT conversion.

3. A multi-signature wallet will be created and owned by the Directors to manage this before we directly manage service provider operational costs through a bank account

4. Any excess funds will be reported to the DAO at the end of the six months

Financial Operations

• Objective: There is no periodic reporting on the revenues and costs of the DAO. The goal would be to onboard a new financial professional(s) or provide working capital to assist with financial audits, treasury management, tokenomics, and the obligated 2023 Annual Financial Return (AFR).

Next Steps:

• Onboard a professional financial expert to manage this process.
• Investigate the 5M TRU in the multi-sig distributors’ wallet to assess its recoverability.
• Treasury diversification management
• Open EQI bank account and take over payments for service provider
• Complete the community-requested audit as detailed in the proposal TFIP-8.

Proposed Budget: 100,000 USD annually, covering salary, benefits, and associated costs for Financial Operations.

2. Legal and Compliance Process

• Objective: Major shortages exist in legal operational resources required to scale TrueFi’s offering and manage gaps in the legal process for certain products. It’s important to update legal processes, including hiring, developing the reclamation process, and borrower onboarding procedures.

Next Steps:

• Create a legal and compliance structure that includes contract drafting, onboarding service providers, legal research, corporate structuring, and the reclamation process including sourcing a law firm on retainer and managing the retainer with Walkers (our BVI counsel).

Proposed Budget: 250,000 USD for legal fees and compliance restructuring for Legal.

3. Managing Operational and Business Development Costs (In US $)

• Objective: Multiple service providers exist in the TrueFi DAO who have been rather successfully supporting the DAO. During this transition, we will support the DAO in managing the competitive bids from business and technical providers (including Cicada Partners, Adapt3r, Wallfacer, Teragon etc) and create a roadmap and operational model where the development is aligned with business and revenue expectations

Next Steps:

• Ensure business continuity for TrueFi’s core products through a bidding process of service providers
• Oversee the onboarding, purchasing of technology, and integration of technical providers into an integrated product.
• Drive both lender and borrower KPIs
• Look to retain an institutional business development personnel to expand TVL and revenue

Head of Operations x1 $150,000 (1 person at $150,000)

Product Manager x1 $120,000 (1 person at $120,000)

BD x2 $200,000 (Up to 2 persons at about $100,000 each)

Full stack engineers x2 $360,000 (Up to 2 full stack senior engineers at $180,000 each)

Two Junior engineers x2 $180,000 (Up to 2 junior engineers at $90,000 each)

Legal Operations: x1 $180,000

4. Marketing and Community Management, Community Team Onboarding, and Social (IRL) Outreach

• Objective: Following the transfer of social media platforms to the Foundation, the goal is to ensure proper representation of TrueFi and its products on all relevantrelevantat events and social platforms

Next Steps:

• Securely hold and manage TrueFi social media accounts
• Strategize a marketing and social media strategy to align with current and future TrueFi products and projects
• Hire a social media manager to manage and execute the process
• Agree with the proposal and discuss implementing Discord as part of the second-half-year plan.

Proposed Budget: 75,000 USD for current moderators, team expansion, and event participation.

5. Team Travel for Regional Representation

• Objective: TrueFi needs to expand its market share, mindshare and have a strong presence in network-building conferences globally. This goal is to allocate a travel budget for the TrueFi DAO.

Next Steps:

• Include the travel budget in the overall compensation plan for the DAO.

Proposed Budget: 25,000 USD for travel expenses.

6. Legal Reserve Fund

• Objective: TrueFi will need an amount of reserve to deal with potential unknown legal issues with funds in reserve un-hindered by a DAO Tally vote for funding.

Proposed Reserve: 250,000 USD for legal reserves.

7. Investment Vehicle Creation

• Objective: TrueFi has the opportunity to establish an investment vehicle focused on other projects involved in Real World Assets (RWA) and other dapps to that Truefi can invest into to expand its network and token utility. The use of such investments may enhance the reputational value of TRU and its network and affect projects - leveraging on its long legacy and its Binance listing.

Next Steps:

• Assess whether this investment vehicle opportunity can be a value-add to TrueFi with the legal, business, and governance framework requirement

In a chart form of estimated costs:

Estimated Budget in USD
Position/Item	Annual
Financial Admin and Audit	100,000
Legal and Compliance External	250,000
Operations and Ecosystem Development
Operations Head (x1)	160,000
Product Manager (x1)	120,000
Business Development (x2)	200,000
Full Stack Engineers (x2)	360,000
Junior Engineers (x2)	180,000
Legal Operations / Internal Counsel (x1)	180,000
Community Outreach Manager	75,000
Team Travel	25,000
Investment Vehicle (SAFT investments etc)	50,000
Directors Fees	150,000
Total Expenses	1,850,000
Legal Reserve	250,000
Total USD Stables Estimated	2,100,000
Half Year (full draw for legal reserve)	1,175,000

Next Governance Steps

As the proposals does not fall under the simplified governance exemptions, the proposal will require the following steps:

1. Forum Posting: A 72-hour posting period on the forum to allow the community to provide feedback.

2. Snapshot Vote: A 48-hour Snapshot vote will be conducted with the options: “OK to vote on Tally,” “Not OK to vote on Tally,” and “Abstain.” At least 5% of staked TRU must participate in this Snapshot vote to meet the quorum.

3. Amendment Period: If the 5% quorum is met, with a majority negative vote, a 72-hour period will follow to allow for any amendments or discussions before the proposal is posted to Tally.

4. Tally Vote: Otherwise, the proposal will be posted to Tally for the final vote.

[sebdavies]

Dear Nathan,

Thank you for presenting a comprehensive budget and strategic plan for TrueFi’s continued evolution. I fully align with the broader vision, especially the emphasis on Real World Assets (RWA) and decentralization. I really wish the industry would move away from that acronym, but I digress… However, I’d like to offer some constructive feedback that I believe could strengthen the proposal and ensure maximal impact during this crucial period for the DAO.

One key area that would benefit from more clarity is the criteria for evaluating the success or failure of this spending. As TrueFi proceeds with significant capital allocations, it would be prudent to introduce performance-based milestones tied to specific key performance indicators (KPIs). While these benchmarks may evolve through the accumulation of feedback from various initiatives, it’s essential to define what TrueFi aims to achieve with these capital outlays and how the outcomes will be assessed (i.e., what is the “R” in ROI?). A practical approach would be to disburse funds in tranches, contingent on the achievement of predefined milestones, or to provide justifiable reasons if goals are missed. These are common practices in new ventures and at many of the most innovative corporations.

Additionally, while the proposal outlines substantial investments in operational and business development areas, more granular details on how these expenditures will drive measurable outcomes would be valuable. For example, in marketing and community management, defining clear objectives—such as engagement metrics or user acquisition targets—would help track the return on investment. It would also be helpful to clarify what constitutes success in areas like conferences or outreach events. This isn’t about micromanagement but about ensuring responsible capital allocation, which is fundamental to the Board’s fiduciary responsibility.

Regarding new product development, the proposal mentions plans to create “enhanced versions of innovative products” that could have an economic impact, but the specifics remain undisclosed. While I appreciate the need for discretion in certain strategies, it’s challenging to approve a budget for product development without a clearer understanding of what will be built and how it aligns with the DAO’s broader goals. I suggest that, before approving expenditures for roles like engineers, product managers, and business development personnel, the DAO be presented with a detailed roadmap outlining key milestones, scope, and deliverables. Depending on the complexity of these initiatives, the required resources could vary significantly. In the meantime, a consulting budget may be more appropriate until the full scope is clearly defined.

Finally, I’d recommend adopting and communicating a more transparent approach to periodic reporting on both spending and performance. Establishing regular updates on how funds are being utilized and how they are translating into measurable outcomes (with the possibility of tying compensation to these results) will help foster trust and encourage active participation from the community.

I believe these refinements will help us balance speed with accountability, ensuring that our efforts lead to sustainable growth for TrueFi. I’m happy to discuss these ideas further or assist in implementing them.

I look forward to continuing to contribute to the project’s success.

Best regards,

Sebastien

[StrategoHoldings]

It’s so genuinely refreshing to see a real, constructive conversation around accountability within TrueFi’s governance. Leaving the past in the past. As a DAO, we’ve reached a stage where transparent, performance-driven discussions need to be the foundation of how we operate.

This is essential for ensuring our community’s trust, making informed decisions, and driving sustainable growth.

I personally see this proposal as the best thing that has happened to TrueFi in many years DAO governance wise. It’s absolutely crucial that we start holding ourselves to higher standards, with clear metrics, regular growth updates, and a focus on measurable outcomes.

This proposal is not only a critical step in the right direction but also serves as the starting block for many great conversations and initiatives to come. I believe it sets the foundation for a more accountable, transparent, and results-driven future for TrueFi.

That said, having a somewhat defined plan without disclosing too much of what the plan consists of is also a tricky situation.

We need to find a happy medium where all members of the DAO can vote with confidence in the vision, while still protecting any sensitive or strategic information. This balance is key to fostering both transparency and progress.

I look forward to seeing the responses to @sebdavies very well laid out constructive feedback

Lets get it!

[CicadaSefton]

A simple middle ground is have all key stakeholders opt in to sign an NDA. This way the strategic plans can be shared, analyzed, receive vital feedback from subject matter experts, and we can then know what we are actually voting for here. This really seems like table stakes to me.

[Sanctus]

Are these head count rates contractor rates? If so, what contractor premium was used? With a 20-30% premium, the base salary, without a performance comp or incentive plan is a bit below market comparables to be competitive (at least in Silicon Valley).

[StrategoHoldings]

@CicadaSefton

This really seems like table stakes to me.

Lets look at “table stakes” for “underwrittering” borrowers

Would it make sense to raise the “table stakes” for onboarding new borrowers by thoroughly assessing performance bonuses, especially if the current method involves an underwriter “recycling” borrowers with minimal effort, delivering little value to the protocol while receiving substantial compensation?

And If “recycling” (i use that term loosely) existing borrowers is “the norm” because that’s all we have on-chain at present, then do we even need an underwriter for this?

In this case, it’s worth questioning what exactly the performance bonuses are being paid for?

They are all very welcome, but im just curious, whos next …?

Further to this, having an underwriter of borrowers was originally my idea which was discussed back on discord in Nov 2022.

But i think we dropped the ball with the following regarding vetting an underwriter for the DAO

[vandynathan]

Rather than continuing to outsource to external service providers who have thus far been charging over market rates without KPIs, or KPIs that are not value-add to the balance sheet of the protocol, I believe the best middle ground here is allowing the community to entrust certain core operators within the Foundation structure to take on the risks while establishing a streamlined operational process. This will ensure that we’re not relying on too many external service providers until we’ve established key performance indicators (KPIs).

This will provide TrueFi with some much need stability and resources to remain a strong player in the RWA space.

As mentioned, the Board has already identified potential capital that could be allocated to the protocol, even while working part-time. With the proposed budget, we will be able to accelerate this further. In most cases, this kind of planning involves collaboration between a head of operations and core operators from the business development (BD) and tech teams, especially when setting up KPIs. For now, the objectives and next steps present a framework for quantified KPIs.

At the moment, we don’t have a core team in place, which is why we’re suggesting a proposal to the community regarding which operators are necessary for the team and how much their roles would cost at market rates. From there, we can develop more accurate and meaningful KPIs.

We can certainly provide high-level KPIs for each area, but specific and useful generic KPIs require domain expertise. If the community believes certain roles are unnecessary or overlooked, we encourage you to share that feedback. Our current proposal offers a broad outlook on KPIs and where they will come from. As we onboard new operators, future updates will definitely include those KPIs and provide more clarity on progress.

@Sanctus

Are these head count rates contractor rates? If so, what contractor premium was used? With a 20-30% premium, the base salary, without a performance comp or incentive plan is a bit below market comparables to be competitive (at least in Silicon Valley).

We have already been in discussions with potential highly skilled operators who have suggested that these comps are fairly reasonable. However, during the hiring process, if we have to ask for more, then this will be reported and explained to the DAO through the period reporting.

From an economic viability perspective, we’ve received positive feedback from strategic partners and investors who are willing to deploy more capital once additional technological features are implemented. However, we may need an internal BD member to do a market and ecosystem analysis to complete a re-assessment of market opportunities and costs, and this would be part of a comprehensive product description, developed in conjunction with the tech team.

As you can see, this is serious work that, in most startups, would typically be handled by founding members through sweat equity. Unfortunately, we don’t have that luxury here, which is why we’re looking for the most efficient way to get this up and running.

Just to re-clarify, it’s agreed that we need periodic reporting and we can amend the proposal to include quarterly or bi-annual updates on KPIs.

[Marcus_Leanos]

Speaking on behalf of @adapt3r, I think this proposal is moving in the right direction but have a few aspects we would like to understand more clearly:

1. How is this funding going to work in terms of mechanics? Is half (or all) of the TRU minted immediately to a specific wallet? Who’s wallet?

2. How can we approach this in a non-mutually exclusive way without precluding other teams that may have compelling ideas from applying to steer the DAO’s vision - especially those that can articulate that vision in a more tangible way? Should we assume that, given this is equivalent to 6-12 months of funding, we are deciding on our service provider for the foreseeable future?

3. I think there are some obvious ways we can approach this in a piecemeal fashion while things ramp up. This degree of future expense line items seems overboard relative to the lack of tangible plan. If this funding is to fill a gap and give the Directors resources to operate as we form a plan, it seems like a fraction of this $ amount, personnel, and expense line items will suffice. This proposal is seeking to fund a team of 10 people plus 6 (?) Directors. That will be the largest team TrueFi has ever employed. More of a statement than a question.

4. Is the Board now directing day-to-day operations and executing its own internal plan? When and how will that change? What happens when new Board members join? Where does the DAO draw the line and define conflicts of interest in situations where the Board is requesting funding that it unilaterally controls?

5. Who is in charge of allocating these resources? If it’s the Board, will the assets be frozen until we have a complete Board? How will there be transparency both before and after each financial commitment? If the Board is receiving funding to carry out a strategic plan that has not been articulated, do we need to create a new Board to oversee the Board?

6. Is there a 30% “surplus buffer” being applied to the entire sum as well as the individual line items? Why 30%? Why not agree to a USD amount and run a Sabilier stream that calcs the USD equivalent of tokens at the time of funding/minting?

7. I don’t want to get into specific line items because we have a lot of thoughts there, but total legal expense + legal reserve of $500k seems excessive. Would be useful to understand what questions we need answered from counsel.

I know these may seem like pointed questions, but we are incredibly appreciative and supportive of the work that the Board is doing. You have both done an incredible job (especially given recent events) and thank you both for putting in the work here to get something on the forum.

Onward and upward.

[Cicada.Partners]

Hi Stratego -

1. My colleague Christian elaborated on a number of these points here.

2. With respect to your borrower pipeline question, please see page 10 of our ABL pipeline as a snapshot of the RWA capacity we can bring to TrueFi. As Christian mentioned in the above link, we’ve invested in both legal docs and an off-chain fund structure to unlock access to new sources of capital that we aim to run through the platform.

3. I’m glad you agree TrueFi must have a risk manager. We anticipate a competitive bidding process and welcome feedback and questions on TFIP-18.

Have a nice weekend!

[sebdavies]

Thank you, Nathan and others, for your thoughtful feedback. I agree—this is a pivotal time for TrueFi to invest in growth, reengage the community, and focus on transparency and profitability. I appreciate the complexities of establishing a core team and the current Board’s efforts with limited resources, especially with the current drama in the forum.

Here’s my perspective: TrueFi, like an old house in need of renovation, requires a clear plan before investing large sums. If you go to a bank for a construction loan, they’ll ask for detailed plans and tie disbursements to milestones, ensuring the project stays on track. It’s essential for the community to see a clear go-forward strategy before committing capital. If an entirely new direction is being proposed, then it doesn’t take much to conduct a little market research and spin up a deck with some financial projections. In fact, the exercise is super helpful and the process of having it reviewed openly usually uncovers any weaknesses in the plan. If the idea can be so easily copied by readers that it can’t be shared, then it’s probably not very good.

On KPIs, I agree that domain expertise is needed for precise targets. An interim token allocation for planning and research—including expanding the team somewhat to spread the workload and secure domain expertise—could help develop a detailed roadmap with role-specific KPIs and milestones. This ensures the team is set up for success and offers flexibility as the plan evolves.

My suggestions are aimed at laying the groundwork for sustainable growth, ensuring efficient use of resources. Legal/compliance spending is critical, and I’m glad to see it’s well-covered by you, Nathan. The commitment to periodic reporting is also crucial, and I’m pleased it’s included in the proposal. I’ve worked in treasury at a public company and have been involved in institutional investments for two decades, so I’d be happy to discuss strategies around treasury diversification. I also have connections at EQI Bank and can assist there.

Governance can be messy—especially in a decentralized, forum-based environment. But we’re in crypto because we believe in democratized decision-making and transparency, and of course, we all want to generate returns. TrueFi has the potential to build something sustainable, and leaning into the community with openness and collective intelligence will strengthen that foundation.

[MountCarmel]

Very well articulated points from both @sebdavies and @Marcus_Leanos

The timing of this proposal is certainly interesting, especially considering the Board of Directors has just called for the formation of a fuller board. Yet, the community is being asked to evaluate a proposal (that is seemingly setting the DAO to a diverging direction) on a very short timeline, without the benefit of a detailed strategic plan and execution details for a material budget allocation.

Given a number of highly qualified candidates with a diverse background and execution track record have applied to the BoD roles, it seems perfectly logical to wait for a complete board, as a team the BoD can thoroughly review any proposal, and then present it to the community.

Governance relies on checks and balances, and pushing through a rushed proposal without adequate details sets a troubling precedent, even more so since this proposal is from the presiding 2-person BoD. @vandynathan specifically how would this be measured in decentralization matrix and transparency report you have proposed in your board candidate statement?

[vandynathan]

Firstly, thanks for the comments and feedback from the community on this proposal. It’s great to see that TrueFi governance is active and that members are so committed to its success. I think it’s important to clarify some points before this proposal goes to Snapshot.

As mentioned, “navigating the complexities of establishing a core team and the current Board’s efforts with limited resources, especially with the current drama in the forum,” requires a focus on clear action.

@sebdavies and @MountCarmel, you’ve made some great points that I’d like to address directly.

Utility and Capital Deployment

The plan is clear: we need more utility for lenders so their capital isn’t static in pools when there are no borrowers. It’s really that simple. We’ve already had strong interest from investors and lenders wanting to deploy capital, and offering yield to this side of the chicken-and-egg problem will make our protocol much stickier.

Perhaps this wasn’t emphasized clearly enough, but to clarify, this is what the Board is suggesting the Foundation and TrueFi focus on moving forward. Meanwhile, other service providers will continue to support the build-out of TVL, with additional incentives to support their onboarding processes. This isn’t a new direction—it will be directly integrated into the protocol.

Two Strategic Paths Forward

There are two options: either we create our own native DeFi yields or incorporate white-label solutions like Arkis. Either way, to execute effectively, we need funds to hire in-house operators who can carry out the plan and coordinate with service providers. We’re currently moving too slowly, and the Board is at its capacity. Any comments that derail us from getting operators onboard will only delay our ability to bring in strong potential candidates and will stagnate TrueFi’s growth potential.

Budget Justification + Checks and Balances

And to follow, the requested fund is not disproportionate to the goals set, especially compared to previous requests, we are nearly 50% lower and also have included a greater deal of services. This includes the legal aspect of matters, which is of the essense seeing that we want to onboard more institutional players and avoid potential legal risks.

Additionally, the Foundation will be committed to quarterly planning. If any funds are spent beyond the budget, they will be subject to community scrutiny. We will provide quarterly reports to deepen trust between the team and the community.

This is why we’ve budgeted for half a year—six months. At any point, if the Board or Foundation fails in their role, the community and TRU holders have the power to vote them out. This provides a sufficient runway for us to set up the team and coordinate with service providers, as you’ve mentioned.

We are employing highly skilled and highly employable individuals. We need to provide them with confidence to join us on this mission to add more utility to the protocol to make it easier to increase of TVL. That requires confidence that the Foundation can continue its work without significant interruptions.

Moving forward, the Budget was already been reviewed and discussed with many of the service providers and active TRU holders in the community before being shared, from a technical, business and strategic perspective. Furthermore, @MountCarmel the Budget, vision and plan will also receive a light review from the Board candidates that we converse with this week.

Last but not least, regarding the decentralistion metrics of TrueFi, we’ll have time to dive deeper into them once there is a strong operational team, but for now, as long as the governance process is maintained and the decentralised holders stTRU holders have the final then we are still working within the confines of decentralised governance.

Confidentiality and Protecting Intellectual Property

I also don’t believe it’s always necessary to disclose business-sensitive information that goes beyond providing a high-level vision for the protocol (scaling utility for lenders). We’re already in discussions with institutional investors who want to deploy their capital into TRU and pools. Some of these investors are exploring similar plans with other protocols, and it’s critical that we protect our intellectual property, especially as we don’t yet have operators in place to execute efficiently—our competitors do.

If any TrueFi participants are truly interested, they are welcome to contact myself or Ferengi, sign an NDA, and we can continue conversations that go beyond the high-level vision we’ve outlined.

[vandynathan]

Thanks for questions @Marcus_Leanos, they were really helpful on an operational level actually. So here the response:

1. The entire budget will be sent to a Foundation Treasury multi-signature wallet, liquidated into stablecoins to ensure our runway. The wallet will be shared with the community so that activities can be tracked transparently.
2. This is already in progress. As mentioned multiple service providers and community members are onboard with this roadmap, and some will be submitting similar proposals in the coming weeks. The Foundation remains open to collaborating with sustainable, value-added, revenue-generating opportunities.
3. The plan is quite straightforward, we need more utility for lenders and we can do that by: 1) add DeFi integrations and incentives for RWA players 2) maintain financial oversight and 3) monetize the treasury. The plan is to onboard a team that won’t just be here for six-months but for years, and this budget will provide them confidence to do so, both through the legal clarity that we will receive and financial clarity too.
4. The balance between the DAO being operators and overseers will shift once we have additional operators joining from outside the Board. Not all Board members will be operational, which allows them to focus on oversight. Moreover, they have fiduciary duties as a check, and the DAO can remove either if the community deems necessary.
5. The Board has already identified high-quality individuals to join the team, including BDs and a Head of Operations from a top-tier DeFi protocol. Freeing up assets wasn’t initially in the plan, but by the time we onboard these new players and start compensating them, we will have also onboarded the new Board members.
6. This step ensures we can access the dollar value of the funds requested.
7. We’ve consulted with external counsel on various legal items that require our attention, especially as we look to integrate more DeFi-native features into the protocol. They are not cheap but will provide us, investors and operators with the upmost confidence moving foward.

[vandynathan]

Once again, thank you for the feedback, it has all been incorporated into how the Vision and Budget will be executed and handled.

The snapshot is now live for TRU token holders to vote and decide on:

https://snapshot.org/#/truefi-dao.eth/proposal/0xdd8ccb2299f3e5a64bff7631c5c6c48846423a9dbca7e03a9bc85205def76656

[MountCarmel]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate the ongoing efforts by the Board of Directors (BoD) and community members to accelerate the growth of TrueFi. However, I believe it is vital that these initiatives adhere to sound governance principles.

A significant barrier to attracting traditional finance (TradFi) capital to decentralized finance (DeFi) is the ambiguity surrounding governance processes and legal liabilities. While I commend your enthusiasm for advancing discussions with potential investors and lenders, I have concerns regarding the request for community engagement on budget matters without the ability to disclose specific details due to competitive reasons.

The service providers to the TrueFi DAO have been proactive in providing comprehensive information about their products, budgets, go-to-market strategies, and potential total value locked (TVL). They have also addressed all legitimate inquiries. Similarly, several BoD candidates have disclosed their professional backgrounds.

The primary responsibility of the BoD is to ensure a transparent and equitable governance process while addressing potential conflicts of interest. If there is a specific product angle the BoD wishes to explore with investors or lenders, it may be prudent to delegate this request to an independent third-party service provider. This approach would allow for submissions similar to those of other third-party providers and would be subject to community scrutiny and due diligence.

I am concerned that requesting voters to sign NDAs for further details does not align with proper governance practices and may create an impression of unequal treatment between your proposal and those of service providers. This could inadvertently lead to an uneven playing field and raise concerns about the potential for the BoD to gain an unfair advantage for certain entities.

I trust that this is not your intention, but I urge caution to avoid any misunderstandings and setting out bad precedence.

[vandynathan]

Thanks for the patience and feedback

The Proposal is now live on Tally:

Tally | TrueFi | [TFIP-19] TrueFi Forward Vision and Operational Expense Request