TAP stands for Treasury Asset Proposal

TAP-1 will highlight the recent increase in allocations to Aave ($10.5m now) and Convex (targeting 4.5m)

TAP-2 will highlight an increase in allocation to the Sushi Onsen (for 25% of SLP holdings)

Summary: Following OIP-20, we would like to begin piloting deposits into new partners. Initially, we would like to deposit $100K Dai in Gro Protocol’s risk tranched PWRD vault (secured 270% by their leveraged vault product)

Motivation: PWRD is low-risk savings product. Designed to offer safer access to DeFi yields, tokenised as a stablecoin with built-in yield and protection. Its value is backed by three of the most traded stablecoins on the market—DAI, USDC, and USDT—but also protected against problems with any of them.

As Gro Risk Balancer spreads risk across stablecoins, this helps to protect PWRD if one of DAI, USDC, or USDT fails or gets censored. It then offers Deposit Protection, as the risk tranching mechanism means that any loss of capital from stablecoins or yield strategies is first absorbed by the Vault, letting PWRD generate yield more safely.

https://docs.gro.xyz/gro-docs/gro-products/pwrd

Moreover, Gro presents a forward-thinking look at product design and enabling the next wave of new defi users. They’ve already secured partnerships with Argent and continue to attract new capital for their products.

We look forward to expanding this relationship following a pilot deposit.  Based on community feedback this proposal has been adjusted.

Risks: Gro is a younger protocol following a guarded launch mode (~$10M TVL). This protocol carries similar composability risks as other yield aggregators but using the PWRD product protects us from various risks including yield platform failures and stable coin peg failures.

https://docs.gro.xyz/gro-docs/gro-products/pwrd/deposit-protection

Our Dai would remain Dai in this engagement.

Should we pilot a $100k deposit into Gro?

    kschan changed the title to TAP-3: Pilot Deposit into Gro Protocol .

    Looks good. +1

    0.2% of our treasury RFV is quite risk-off. This is a fine way to get our feet wet in the Gro protocol.

    Agree low-risk, the only tradeoff here is it increases the complexity of managing the treasury. If we don't feel like that's an issue today then I'm for -- does anyone have context on how burdensome treasury operations are (seems like its automated via dune dashboards, but asking out loud in case there's something I missed)

    Agree with abipup here, $100k is a small amount and I like the idea of supporting young protocols.

    I wish you would put 1m$ but okay 😅

    Good one. Basically hedging a % of DAI with other stable coins, plus yield is a Yes from my side.
    The risk of loosing the deposited amount is high. So hopefully constant monitoring of the performance of the protocol is required i think.

    I would agree with this proposal as I think this is a promising project with an experienced team. As I believe the Gro team are targeting people who are more risk-adverse, this would be a great way to engage users who are not so used to the degen ways. Heh.

    9 days later

    Don_G_Lover

    As a big GRO bag holder, I voted for this.

    If this happens though, I think it makes sense to also push the Gro DAO to move away from exposure to USDT. That "stable coin" has a history of being known as a scam coin. Even though $100k isn't huge, it may help result in enough pull to motivate that team away from such a risky product as USDT.

      gnostication Not more exposed to USDT than other stables, and they don't own any of their stablecoins anyway, they belong to their users.

      As much as everyone in crypto (including myself) hates Tether, this is a bad idea that would significantly reduce revenue for both Olympus and Gro as USDT is still the n°1 stablecoin. If it fails then the loss will be absorbed by their Vault product and PWRD users (including ourselves) will be safe, because that's how Gro is supposed to work. Furthermore, depositing crypto into PWRD doesn't give us any immediate power over governance. We need GRO for that.

      What I would suggest we could do instead is try to collaborate into an agreement that is mutually beneficial. We could onboard Gro into Olympus Pro and simultaneously suggest they look into adding FRAX and LUSD to their protocol and strategies. This way, instead of asking them to shoot themselves in the foot, we're adding value to both protocols, in addition to our own partners, essentially benefiting the entire ecosystem.

        ElChapo

        "Own" is a little subjective in this case, if you consider the conversion of a stablecoin to PWRD or VAULT, and the fact the stables are held (I believe) by a contract and not in the users' wallets.

        That said, I can't find any way to disagree with you. I think your proposed approach is rational and sound.

        Collaboration and sensible cooperation beats politics.

        4 days later

        Voted yes, question, what particular info/evaluation we are looking to get from this piliot?

        Write a Reply...