TFIP-37: Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization

Proposals
1

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The Problem: The TrueFi Brand No Longer Represents the Project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.

DAO Update: Q4 Achievements
3

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.

1 Like
4

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

1 Like
5

Hello , good day!

I’d like to politely ask for clarification on a few points regarding the recent multisig and governance changes.

  1. In October, the treasury multisig address was changed to
    0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b.

  2. After that, there were changes to the signer set. For example, Vivek was unable to confirm that a newly listed address belonged to him, and there was no confirmation or response from him on the forum.

  3. Marcus Leanos has not been responsive for over a year, despite still being listed among voting participants.

  4. Since May 2025, a new participant has appeared - Kevin Sparks - who has initiated multiple proposals, coordinated fund movements, and is now proposing the minting of the remaining token supply. However, there is very limited publicly available information about him.

  5. One of the signer addresses appears to be completely unused and has no transaction history:
    0x546AB7E55E9c9790679Bb2bE905300322A59Bb10.

This leads to my main question:
given that the treasury multisig operates with a 4/7 threshold, could someone please confirm that the four active signers mentioned above are trusted, active, and officially authorized participants?

Please don’t take this as an accusation. From an external perspective, the sequence of changes over the past few months could be interpreted as preparation for potential misuse of funds, and I simply want to ensure that this is not the case.

Apologies in advance if this question comes across as sensitive or if it unintentionally offends anyone. My intention is solely to improve transparency and trust.

Thank you in advance for the clarification

1 Like
6

I was wondering why goblin. I thought he was primarily hired to answer questions on Social media. Well you can’t even say that I only see him on telegram. Alittle weird to be considered for this to be honest.

And what is up with Mr Sparks. All the marketing I see is for the blocks and all his interviews he does is solely for the blocks. Nothing truefi, ever. What is he getting paid for again? Seriously ? I’m confused. He should be doing what goblin was hired to do. And that alone should be substacks updates, social media marketing, research etc. why pay both Mr. Goblin and Mr. Sparks Out of all do respect. Should only be one. Worst that we see as a communities very limited. It’s not much said on X. There’s not much said at all. I’m not saying their not working hard and grinding. But If they are, they’re doing it behind closed doors. And what? We don’t see it does matter. Can we pls get some clarification on again what are they being paid and what are they currently working on. What full value they bring to the table. Thanks you for your time. This is with all curiosity and a lot of unknown, what they actually do and what value they bring to our community and Truefi as a whole

7

Thanks for raising this. I had a feeling there would be some understandable frustration as things went a bit quieter, especially while the team has been heads-down on the rebrand.

To be candid, we’re in an awkward interim phase right now. We’re waiting on TFIPs to be approved before we’re actually authorized to execute the rebrand. That means we can’t responsibly market a new brand yet. At the same time, it doesn’t make much sense to aggressively push TrueFi socials when, assuming the vote passes, those channels will be transitioned in short order. So some outward activity has been intentionally paused.

That doesn’t mean nothing is happening.

On Goblin
Goblin has been quieter publicly because we’re not ready to “pound the drum” on marketing yet. Behind the scenes, he’s working on the annual DAO report and continuing to handle day-to-day community questions, primarily on Telegram where most real-time interaction happens. Once we’re authorized to move forward, his outward activity will ramp up materially. That change is coming soon, particularly around Cyan.

On Kelvin (Sparks)
Kelvin does have another role with The Block, which we actually view as synergistic rather than conflicting. It gives us reach, relationships, and distribution that we expect to leverage much more intentionally once the rebrand clears governance. Internally, Kelvin has been heavily involved in coordination between operations, engineering, and the Cyan team. That work isn’t very visible on social media, but it’s been meaningful for execution.

What changes next
We’re putting the finishing touches on a new Cyan-focused campaign. Testing wraps this week, and once that’s live, you will see more visible activity. We’ve added capital to the vault, have more committed, and Cyan is the primary focus while we wait on final governance steps related to the broader rebrand and the Elara/CDP work.

On costs and accountability
Since compensation and roles were raised, it’s worth saying explicitly: part of the post-governance plan is continued cost and headcount streamlining. We’ve already made meaningful reductions from 2024 to 2025, the team is smaller heading into 2026, and we’ll continue matching personnel costs to the project’s economics.

I completely understand how this looks from the outside, especially with multiple votes stalling due to quorum. Your frustration is reasonable. We are making progress where we’re allowed to, we have a concrete plan ready to go, and once governance clears, activity and visibility will increase quickly.

Appreciate the patience, and happy to keep clarifying where helpful.

9

I want to be more explicit here, because vague language doesn’t help anyone.

When I joined a little more than a year ago, TrueFi was beyond a lightly misaligned project. It was in outright distress.

Monthly spend was close to $450k, much of it tied to long-dated service contracts providing little value, fragmented process ownership, and legal exposure that could not simply be shut off without risking further damage. Unwinding those arrangements required care, negotiation, and time. During that period, execution was constrained whether it was visible or not.

On a practical level, progress was repeatedly slowed by things most people never see:

  • Chasing down long gone multisig signers just to move funds or approve changes

  • A legacy development shop that was unresponsive at critical moments, directly impacting front-end timelines

  • Partial access to infrastructure and repositories, making even simple updates harder than they should have been

  • Navigating uncomfortable but necessary conversations around prior governance decisions and serious legal matters of previous leadership

None of that shows up on a roadmap, but all of it materially affects velocity.

Strategy pivots were not cosmetic

At the time, the prevailing strategy was to build a heavily regulated, compliance-first marketplace. That path would have been extraordinarily expensive, slow, and very likely unsuccessful. A DAO is simply not well suited to securing certifications like SOC 2 Type II or operating like a traditional regulated financial institution. So, we had to shut that down, but as the new guys there’s some time needed to navigate the internal politics… even in a small organization.

Pivoting away from that direction was necessary. It was also disruptive. Some teams were understandably unhappy about moving away from work they had been contracted and compensated to do, and that friction further slowed execution.

The disappointing reskin many people point to was not a lack of effort. It was the result of trying to move forward while disentangling a structure we did not fully control.

Elara: a real setback, handled honestly

We believed Elara could be a winner. The idea was sound. The execution was not.

Leadership issues, missed commitments, and poor coordination let both the community and the broader team down. That was compounded by market conditions that made raising capital difficult and compressed yields to the point where the original launch assumptions no longer worked.

Importantly, this wasn’t ignored. Personnel and responsibility changes were made to reflect those failures, and the project was restructured accordingly. That process was uncomfortable, but necessary, and it materially changed how the work is now being executed.

Rather than abandon the effort or push something live that wouldn’t survive, we chose to retool it properly and leveraged our network to connect with more sustainable collateral sources.

What is moving forward

Despite the setbacks, progress has continued across multiple fronts:

  • Cyan has been a real bright spot. The upcoming marketing and growth push is on schedule relative to what was outlined in earlier forum posts.

  • A live lending vault with Accountable is coming online in days to weeks. Due diligence is complete, paperwork is signed, and we’re in final implementation.

  • Elara is close, and internally there is genuine excitement about finally bringing it live in a form that makes sense economically. Owning this treasury management asset and the tech to loop it means genuine profitability, which will be notable in the crypto ecosystem more broadly.

  • The portions of the rebrand that could be completed without breaching governance constraints are done, and we’re looking forward to sharing the full picture once approvals are in place.

Governance and transparency

Governance friction is real. It is not being ignored, and it is not slowing execution behind the scenes, but it does create visible bottlenecks at decision points. We are actively working through how to improve this without undermining the DAO’s role.

Wallet analysis, token sales, and intent

A number of the conclusions in the post rely on on-chain analysis that, while detailed, draws incorrect causal links.

Yes, tokens have been sold historically following funding approvals. That is not hidden, and it should not be surprising. Approved budgets still need to be converted into operating capital to pay vendors, contributors, and obligations that are largely denominated in fiat or stablecoins.

Where the analysis goes wrong is in assuming intent from timing.

Token sales were not executed to “prolong funding,” manipulate governance outcomes, or extract value. They were carried out under real operational constraints, including:

  • Limited liquidity windows

  • Fragmented legacy wallet structures

  • Execution dependency on legacy multisig signers

  • The need to honor previously approved commitments

In several cases, sales that appear discretionary were simply the first opportunity available to execute once access issues were resolved.

The important distinctions that were missed are:

  • Programmatic vs. opportunistic execution: sales were driven by operational necessity and access, not market timing

  • Use of proceeds: funds were applied to stated operating costs and obligations, not diverted elsewhere

  • Supply dynamics: these actions did not materially worsen long-term supply overhang and were part of stabilizing the project, not extracting from it

We may not have done a good enough job explaining how funded tokens are handled in practice, what execution constraints existed at the time, or why movements sometimes clustered in ways that look suspicious in hindsight. That opacity created space for speculation, even where the underlying activity was legitimate.

That said, our financial activity is detailed in DAO reports, and I stand by the rigor of that disclosure.

On-chain transparency is a feature, not a bug. But transparency without context can lead to confident conclusions that simply aren’t correct.

On transparency more broadly

I’ve spent over 20 years in equity markets, including public micro-caps. I can say with confidence that this community has far more visibility into operations, spending, and internal debate than equity holders typically do.

That doesn’t mean we can’t do better. We can. And we will.

I appreciate the candor in your comments here and in chat, Don. Your tone is professional, and you’re looking for clear answers. That’s fair, and it’s respected.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that this is already a far more open book than most comparable structures, and that building entirely in the open is not always strategically viable.

Where we go from here

This has not been a straight line. There have been missteps, pivots, and lessons learned the hard way.

What matters now is that:

  • The cost structure is sane and continues to be reworked to align with economic reality

  • The product direction is grounded in reality

  • The pipeline is active

  • And the team is still here, still executing

We’re not giving up. We’re building through the mess, not pretending it didn’t exist.

The questions, pushback, and scrutiny are fair. We welcome them. All we ask is that they’re grounded in facts and paired with an understanding of where we started and where we’re actually headed.

More concrete updates are coming soon. The DAO report will provide additional granularity, and as governance progresses, we’ll be in a position to share the new branding with the community.

2 Likes
10

I understand where you’re coming from. From the outside it can sometimes feel like there isn’t much visibility into what different contributors are doing, especially if most of the updates we see are focused on specific things like the Blocks content or occasional posts on X.