TFIP-37: Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization

[sebdavies]

Summary

This proposal requests community approval to rebrand the TrueFi project and to mint the remaining TRU token supply to fund this transition and future growth.

Over the past year, the Board and Foundation have worked to clean up legacy issues, stabilize operations, and build new products. However, the TrueFi brand continues to carry reputational baggage from earlier eras that no longer reflect the team, the technology, or the direction of the project.

A rebrand allows the protocol to retain its technology (including Cyan, the TrueFi vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP system) while cleanly separating from the legacy identity that has become a significant headwind to growth and business development.

Background

TrueFi has gone through substantial internal transformation in the last 12 months. The current contributors have:

• Streamlined governance and operations

• Consolidated technical assets

• Integrated Cyan

• Developed a stablecoin and CDP architecture

• Improved financial discipline

• Invested in modernizing the infrastructure

These improvements position the project for renewed growth. However, despite this progress, the brand itself remains one of the largest obstacles.

The Problem: The TrueFi Brand No Longer Represents the Project

The reputation TrueFi accumulated from 2020–2023 (governance disputes, misaligned incentives, unresolved forum discussions, contributor turnover, and loan disputes from teams long gone) continues to resurface despite the current team’s clean track record.

This manifests in several ways:

• BD conversations that begin with legacy concerns unrelated to today’s contributors

• Questions on socials about events that occurred years ago under prior teams

• Negative associations that overshadow new products and integrations

• Confusion about which groups or technologies are still part of the project

• Community members repeatedly asking why the protocol has not rebranded

The brand has become a structural drag on credibility, growth, hiring, partnerships, and even basic communications.

The technology is strong.
The team is aligned.
The opportunity is real.
The brand is a bottleneck.

A clean slate solves this.

Rationale for Rebranding

The Community Has Actively Requested a Rebrand

Multiple members of the Telegram community have raised the idea of rebranding, recognizing that the legacy issues are not going away and continue to distract from the work actually being built today.

This proposal formalizes that discussion and acknowledges the community’s input.

The Brand Carries Reputational Baggage That No Longer Reflects Reality

Despite the current team’s work to fix the past, nearly all external conversations still surface history that:

• The current contributors did not create

• The current Board has already resolved or addressed

• The technology stack no longer reflects

This creates unnecessary friction for BD, partnerships, liquidity collaborators, and ecosystem conversations.

A Unified Brand Enables the Project to Present Its Technology as a Cohesive System

We now operate:

• Cyan (NFT-backed lending)

• TrueFi vault infrastructure

• A stablecoin and CDP system

• Off-chain borrower evaluation and credit primitives

These should sit under one coherent brand, not fragmented legacy naming.

The Rebrand Allows Us to Move Forward Without Dragging the Past Along

The rebrand is not about erasing history (the TrueFi forum will remain, but separately for legacy discussions) but about building a project that can grow without constantly answering for events unrelated to the present.

This creates:

• A clear identity

• A cleaner narrative

• A more credible BD posture

• A healthier environment for tokenholders

• A fresh foundation for everything we build next

5. The Rebrand Requires Resources: Treasury Recapitalization

Executing a proper rebrand and transition (including audits, documentation, business development, integrations, design work, communications, and ongoing operational continuity) requires adequate funding. Minting the remaining TRU supply does not change the maximum token supply, was always contemplated in the original token design, and provides the balance-sheet capital necessary to execute this transition responsibly. This recapitalization ensures that the project can move forward without compromise and with the resources needed to complete the rebrand effectively..

Scope of This Proposal

1. Approve a Full Rebrand of the Protocol

This includes:

• Developing a new project name and identity

• Updating documentation, branding, and public interfaces

• Migrating active governance, engineering, and communications to the new brand

• Retaining the TrueFi forum for historical and claims-related matters

2. Mint the Remaining TRU Supply Into the Treasury

Funds will support:

• Rebrand execution

• Operational continuity

• BD and liquidity partner engagement

• Engineering, audits, and integrations

• Communications and documentation updates

• Additional liquidity for Cyan, lending vaults, stablecoin, and CDP infrastructure

3. Establish the Operational Framework for the Brand Transition

The transition will include coordinating contributors around a unified rebrand plan, updating all public documentation and technical materials to reflect the new identity, preparing communication packages for partners and ecosystem participants, and ensuring that Cyan, the vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP systems are properly represented under the new brand.

This framework also includes planning the sequence of interface updates, consolidating governance and communication channels, and managing the rollout of the new brand across all user- and developer-facing surfaces. This proposal focuses exclusively on the brand transition and does not authorize any token migration or reconstitution, which would require separate governance action if pursued.

4. Resume and Complete Critical Technical Workstreams

As part of the brand transition and in preparation for renewed growth, several technical initiatives that were previously paused due to funding and prioritization constraints will be resumed and completed.

This includes restarting the external audit process for Elara V1, which had been paused during earlier stages of the project. Completing this audit is a prerequisite for deploying Elara as a production-grade system and for engaging with partners that require formally reviewed smart contract infrastructure. In parallel, the CDP architecture will undergo its own independent audit to ensure the security, correctness, and robustness of the system before broader usage.

In addition, work on KYC and AML integrations (which had also been paused) will be resumed. These integrations are necessary to support compliant counterparties, enable broader participation in the protocol’s products, and ensure the infrastructure can support institutional and regulated use cases as adoption increases.

Finally, additional capital will be allocated to support early-stage liquidity requirements across the protocol’s products. This includes ensuring sufficient liquidity is available to support initial usage, testing, and partner onboarding, without relying on ad hoc or reactive measures.

Together, these workstreams ensure that the protocol’s technical foundations, compliance capabilities, and liquidity posture are aligned with the expectations of a modern, growth-oriented on-chain financial platform.

Implementation Timeline (3–5 Weeks)

Week 0–1:

• Mint remaining TRU into the treasury

• Begin final brand development, naming, and design

• Prepare updated documentation and transition plan

Week 2–3:

• Announce new brand identity

• Begin migration of public-facing interfaces, documentation, and communication channels

Week 3–5:

• Complete migration to new brand

• Provide transparency report on treasury usage and remaining runway

• Publish updated BD, partner, and technical documentation under new brand

Next Governance Steps

As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:

1. Forum Posting (72 hours):
   Community discussion and feedback period.

2. Snapshot Vote (48 hours):
   Options:

   • OK to vote on Tally

   • Not OK to vote on Tally

   • Abstain

3. A minimum of 5% of staked TRU is required for quorum.

4. Amendment Period (72 hours):
   If quorum is met but “Not OK to vote on Tally” receives the majority, the proposal enters a 72-hour amendment and discussion window before moving forward.

5. Tally Vote:
   If Snapshot passes (or the amendment period concludes), the proposal proceeds to Tally for a binding on-chain vote.

Conclusion

TFIP-37 initiates a straightforward but essential step: separating the future of the protocol from the legacy of the TrueFi brand.

This allows the community to focus on what has actually been built (modern credit primitives, NFT-backed lending, stablecoin/CDP infrastructure, and a unified technology stack) rather than continuously answering for a past that no longer reflects the team, the products, or the direction of the project.

The combination of a clean brand and a properly funded treasury gives the protocol the best possible foundation for growth.

[Don]

@sebdavies

external audit process for Elara V1

Hello, Seb. After reading TFIP-37, I have the following views and questions.
1.How many remaining TRU tokens to be minted? In the past, I have always emphasized my concern about relying on tokens for operations. The more tokens minted, the more tokens flow into the market, making it easier for a sell-off to occur. I once had such doubts and concerns: funding requests and third-party collaborations all require token minting, and once the team has minted all the remaining tokens, there will be no further funding, and TrueFi will be game over. The current proposal to mint the remaining tokens for rebranding work means that the minted tokens will also be used to sell on the market to get funds. Over the past few months, and especially this month, I’ve seen $TRU whales consistently reducing their holdings.
2.Although Truefi’s reputation was severely damaged during the period mentioned in the proposal, thus requiring rebranding, I believe the main reason Truefi struggles to develop well is a lack of funding. I’ve held $tru for a shorter period than many, only two years, perhaps because I haven’t fully grasped the team’s history and the legacy issues. During these two years, I’ve observed that the new team is very proactive in answering holders’ questions and generally addresses their concerns. However, it’s clear that the market doesn’t fully appreciate the new team’s work. Although the cryptocurrency market has faced significant challenges in the past two years, the market’s lack of acceptance of TrueFi has caused the price to continuously rise in ATL. I understand it’s impolite to mention this, but upon reflection, the lower the price, the more tokens are needed to apply for funding each quarter.
The above presents a contradiction: funds → token minting → price.If TFIP-37 passes, how will the new brand address its lack of funding?
3.I understand you’ll mention that the new brand will include Cyan (NFT lending), stablecoins, and the CDP system. Regarding Cyan, I’m unsure what the roadmap will be for 2026. As an observer, I’m sometimes happy to see big loans on Cyan, but we also wonder how much revenue these big loans will generate for TrueFi. Not to mention products like Elara that haven’t even launched yet. Although a test version was released yesterday, we don’t know if Elara will be popular in the market, how its marketing will go, or how much revenue it will generate.
4.As Truholder pointed out, given the impending rebranding, is launching Elara this month appropriate? If the launch is further delayed, will Elara miss out on the market again? Because once TFIP-37 is passed, the team’s focus will shift back to rebranding. Furthermore, we were disappointed to learn that the external audit process for Elara V1 was suspended due to a lack of funding. To my recollection, TrueFi has provided financial support for Elara’s incubation and even funded its Q1 2026 launch and testing, yet various processes have been forced to halt due to lack of funds. I feel this is a form of concealment from us by the team. Every time we inquire about Elara’s progress, the response is always “things are going smoothly,” but we only learn of the suspensions in proposals and blogs later.
5.Once the rebranding process begins, how will $TRU be integrated with the new token? What will the tokenomics of the new token be? Currently, most holders are pessimistic. I’ve checked Tally to see if any well-known Crypto projects require token minting for funding, but most don’t seem to have this requirement. Are there any Crypto projects that have successfully rebranded and are serving as case studies? After the rebranding, will the new brand continue with DeFi + RWA, or will there be other development plans?

[sebdavies]

Thank you for taking the time to write this out. These are reasonable questions, and I appreciate the seriousness with which you’re engaging.

I want to clarify something important at the outset, because it underpins several of your points. TFIP-36 is not proposing a new token design, migration, or economic reset. It is narrowly focused on two things only: addressing the structural drag of the TrueFi brand, and ensuring the project has sufficient resources to execute that transition and resume paused workstreams responsibly. With that framing, I’ll respond to your questions directly.

On minting the remaining TRU and concerns around sell pressure:
The remaining TRU supply was always part of the originally approved token design. Minting it does not increase the maximum supply, but it does unlock balance-sheet capital that the project currently lacks. You are right that relying on token sales for operations is not ideal, and the team is not pretending otherwise. That said, the project is operating in a market where small-cap tokens broadly have seen significant drawdowns over the past two years, often independent of individual execution. That does not excuse missed timelines or stalled initiatives, but it is an important backdrop when evaluating price action.

The alternative to minting is not a cleaner or lower-risk option. It is continuing to operate with insufficient resources while key initiatives remain paused. This proposal is about restoring flexibility and control so that execution is no longer constrained by funding gaps. Treasury usage and pacing will continue to be communicated transparently.

On funding versus reputation:
You’re right that funding constraints have been a major limiter. What is less visible from the outside is how tightly funding and reputation are linked. Despite real cleanup over the past year, the TrueFi brand still triggers questions about legacy events that occurred under prior teams. These conversations are not theoretical. They come up repeatedly in BD, partnership discussions, and external diligence. The rebrand is not being proposed as a substitute for solving funding issues. It is being proposed because the existing brand actively undermines efforts to improve them.

On Cyan, Elara, and revenue visibility:
It’s fair to want clearer visibility into revenue. Cyan is live and demonstrating real demand for NFT-backed credit, but it has been operating under capital and focus constraints. Elara and the CDP system are earlier in their lifecycle, which is exactly why audits and compliance integrations are prerequisites before broader rollout. This proposal does not claim those revenue streams are fully realized. It exists to remove the blockers that have slowed progress and prevented a proper launch posture.

On Elara timing, audits, and communication:
The frustration here is understandable. The pause in the audit process was a consequence of real funding and prioritization constraints, not an attempt to obscure progress. When the team communicated that development was moving forward, that reflected internal engineering work continuing, not the status of every external dependency. That said, the feedback is valid. Clearer distinction between active, paused, and dependent workstreams is necessary. One of the explicit goals of this proposal is to ensure audits for Elara V1 and the CDP architecture can proceed without further interruptions.

On TRU and future structure:
This proposal deliberately avoids defining future token structures or mechanics. That is intentional. The focus here is on creating a clean brand foundation, completing critical technical work, and restoring operational runway. Any future changes to token design or structure would require their own dedicated governance process and community discussion. Nothing in TFIP-36 pre-commits the community to a specific outcome.

On direction and precedent:
Crypto has gone through an extended period where small-cap projects, even those making real progress, have struggled for attention and liquidity. At the same time, projects that have successfully reset have done so by acknowledging when legacy structures became liabilities. This proposal is not a pivot away from credit, Cyan, vault infrastructure, or the stablecoin and CDP systems. It is an attempt to give those products a fair chance to grow without constantly dragging unrelated history behind them.

I understand the pessimism you’re seeing among holders. It’s real, and it’s not irrational given the last few years. The intent here is not to ask for blind trust, but to be clear about the situation. Continuing to operate under a legacy brand with constrained resources is not a viable long-term path. TFIP-36 is about removing the most obvious structural blockers so that execution, product progress, and future decisions can be evaluated on their merits rather than their history.

I appreciate the pushback. These are exactly the conversations governance is meant to surface, and they make the process stronger.

[Jamm]

I like it, detach from the logo this Brand and everything the old team did to this project . Move away completely from the past, This new team didn’t create the problems the past team caused. They don’t deserve All the negativity that they constantly get I personally have been negative mostly about the missing timelines Marketing on social media accounts not being present enough on X which is the biggest platform to market and promote. I hope to see more marketing in the next coming weeks and months to come, especially when there’s a clear goal and roadmap with a new rebrand . I think Marketing is going to become really “fun”. This new team did some Huge saving in-house from cutting cost to getting back in control of old legacy wallets to building internally and not outsourcing

Also Now I can imagine the conversations constant explaining what this new team has been cleaning up from the old during partnerships, BD, funding meeting probably doesn’t go as good, and It takes the light away solely on what is going on now and whats being built now. Main focus steered away In the meeting probably doesn’t go as it should.

And with the minting of the rest of the supply now this is their focus. Time wouldn’t be wasted on proposals. Stalling because of budget limitations. A straight railroad forward and now everything can be finalized, All the audits, V1, cdp, etc, I think this is the right path to go and this will be so exciting to see everything roll out. I also believe the excitement that you will get internally from your whole team, this is a complete rebrand of everything that y’all been working so hard for. This should be a very proud moment and even better when it comes to light