MetaCartel Treasury Proposal #2 + Beginning Moloch v2 migration

There’s been a significant amount of discussion around the idea of treasury management, the MetaCartel Signal and the possibility of using sets/stablecoins to manage some portion of our ETH.

This proposal was spun up last week and discussed on the weekly call, currently it looks like it’s not going to pass, more due to the time restriction and centralization risk, as opposed to a disagreement with the plan of treasury management.

At the same time Moloch v2 is now alive in the world! If we were using a v2 DAO for MetaCartel, these questions about treasury management, centralization, etc, would all be instantly solved by the features v2 allows. Moloch v2 is also still in its infancy, with just a handful of DAOs, it makes sense to start to utilize these new features and to battle-test Moloch v2!

So! This proposal outlines similar goals as Peters previous proposal, with more structure and a part migration to v2. With the end outcome being some % of our total DAO bank, held in token sets, inside of a Moloch v2.

Process would be as follows: (very open to input here, especially from team Odyssy and more technical folks)

  1. Summon a Moloch v2 DAO, MetaCartel v2
  2. Assign everyone shares 1:1 to their shareholding in MetaCartel v1
  3. Then create a proposal in v1 to withdraw 25%? (open to discussion) of the DAO ETH, to be sent to the v2 DAO.
  4. Create a proposal in v2 to convert this deposited ETH into an ETH:Stablecoin set.
  5. Everyone would then have equal share weighting in the new v2 MetaCartel, without having to do anything.

We would then have ~75% of our ETH inside of the v1 DAO and ~25% of our ETH inside of the v2 DAO, meaning we’d then have two DAOs – One to test v2 and be the provide funding to initiatives and the other to hold our long-term ETH (v1).

Hopefully this all makes sense as a plan, it would be good to talk through it on the weekly call, plus have any/all thoughts thrown on this post. Basically, this proposal:

  • Gives us opportunity to start to leverage the new features available with v2.
  • Gives us the ability to manage our treasury using set protocol / other means in a low friction way.
  • Doesn’t force us to totally migrate to a v2 DAO straight off the bat, having v1 and v2 operating at the same time.
    • Discussion needed around how the final migration from v1 to v2 would happen > Future discussion.

Keen on feedback! If the above makes sense, happy to start the process :hatching_chick:


All for migrating to a MetaCartel V2! Biggest questions for me:

  • What does the migration look like? One proposal which grants a bunch of shares to 1 person?

I would assume for the share issuance, the summoner of V2 can just make “funding proposals” and issue 1:1 shares to everyone in V1. This will be a huge headache but the premise certainly checks out.

My vote would be to split the v2 ETH 50% between an interest-earning stablecoin (cDAI or cUSDC) and 50% in this TokenSet.

Last point would be that v2 assets are not meant to be spent, and solely handled as a means of last resort if v1 funds somehow goes to 0.

1 Like

Feels like a solid plan. Not migrating each person individually makes it a lot more feasible logistically.

In terms of the actual tokens, I would say vast majority if not all the funds should go into tokensets. Most in the 60/40 RSI yield set and some in the 20 EMA yield set is my personal holding split that has served me well, so I’m biased to that.

IMO the only reason that stablecoin would make more sense than tokenset is if we are expecting short term sharp decline of ETH price. Otherwise it’s best to be able to retain ETH exposure especially leading to ETH 2 launch which I don’t think is priced in at all yet.

If we agree that tokensets is the better bet, I would also argue that it justifies moving more than 25% of the funds to the new DAO since we still get to retain ETH exposure while increasing our position in a bear market. E.g. if we moved the ETH into tokensets 3 months ago, today we would have twice that amount of ETH. The more funds we move into tokensets the better IMO, they consistently outperform holding just ETH in longer timeframes, and it’s essentially fully autonomous which is perfect for the DAO use case so we don’t have to make collective decisions on timing the market.


Agree. I like this approach. It has multiple benefits including better treasury management, as well as an opportunity to battle test v2 by offering a calculated honeypot.

Would also argue that v2 should be where the ETH + Token Sets are held while the operating pool of the DAO is held in stablecoin, but that’s not currently possible based on known restrictions. IMO, the only reason for a DAO to hold stablecoin vs. an insured (consider additional cost), automated asset manager is for immediate operating expenses.

Excellent discussion so far, here’s a breakdown of each point:


Agree on the migration being a huge headache for one person, but saves a lot of admin for each individual, realistically it wont take me more than a few hours to do the 70 transactions :sweat_smile:

So you’re talking about splitting the (25%?) of total ETH that gets deposited into the v2 DAO 50% into say cDAI and 50% into token sets? Could work – Though putting 100% of it into tokensets basically nets the same result if ETH gets rekt, and offers us the upside if it doesn’t.

“Last point would be that v2 assets are not meant to be spent, and solely handled as a means of last resort if v1 funds somehow goes to 0.”

This actually brings up a key question, assuming we execute on the above proposal, which funds do we spend first? In Coopers quote, we would utilize v1 (non stable ETH funds) first and only use v2 assets if some type of price disaster happened. But I’d actually argue it should be the opposite, we should sit on the ETH in v1 and utilize the more ‘stable’ funds to provide funding. Interested in more discussion here.


“In terms of the actual tokens, I would say vast majority if not all the funds should go into tokensets.”

Disagree, although tokensets provide a nice hedging mechanism, when ETH was collected for MetaCartel, it was under the alignment of driving forward Ethereum, imo we have a responsibility to maintain a level of commitment here.

Given the amount of ETH collected from the community with that in mind, and going back to Dekans post here (link)

“We are working on eth application layer, eth is trending up and really shouldn’t we be vested in eths success. Shorting eth is a signal we do not believe in it.”

I don’t think it makes sense to take too much of our ETH off the table (at least initially).


“IMO, the only reason for a DAO to hold stablecoin vs. an insured (consider additional cost), automated asset manager is for immediate operating expenses.”

Mostly agree, so this is basically splitting the allocation three ways: 75% of ETH remains in v1 DAO, 25% of ETH gets deposited into v2, then this 25% gets broken up into: Some small allocation in stablecoins (weekly/monthly operating expenses?) and most of the allocation to tokensets?

1 Like

As far as I understand the original proposal’s goal was to hedge ETH volatility to provide a 6-9 month runway. Considering that MetaCartel provides more good to the Ethereum community by operating than by holding ETH this makes sense. As such I’d support holding ETH and using the stabler coins we acquire to fund operations.

If we agree on that, then I would recommend keeping things simple: a bunch of ETH and some Sets or an interest bearing token. To determine if Sets or an interest bearing token should be used as a hedge we should probably ask ourselves (and potential grantees) if we would prefer receiving sets or stabler coins as payment.

Need to appoint someone to own the decisions around treasury management and trust them to both listen and make the right calls.

Theres no such thing as collective accountability.

I 100% agree with this, and this is actually why I’m advocating for the token sets. The token sets are ETH, not 50% ETH 50% something else. They’re either 100% ETH when ETH is bullish or 100% stable coin when ETH is bearish. Keeping 100% of the v2 funds in tokensets is more ETH bullish than keeping 50% in token sets and 50% in stablecoin.

For example, the RSI 60/40 set:

Buying this set with ETH right now doesn’t at all change our ETH exposure, all it does is swap it over to USDc if ETH starts trending downwards.

@griff From your points in the other thread, I 100% agree with your sentiments on staying bullish on ETH and minimizing decision making, and I think token sets are the best way to do that. No one has to decide when to sell ETH for stable coin or vice versa, and we retain our ETH exposure while ETH is going up while making the most of downwards movements, allowing us to increase our ETH position from market volatility

1 Like

This feels solid.

Also, what’s the admin/governance risk level of Sets? Are they reasonably secure/decentralized and/or do we trust the team running things?

We can purchase insurance on the Set Vault for marginal costs using Nexus Mutual if we choose to hedge to TokenSets.

To chime back in on @JamesW point about which funds are spent first, I am actually quite keen on v2 funds being largely for operations (and spent first)

Seeing as we are now migrating to paid roles, V2 may be a nice place to facilitate those payments, especially if we are able to hold a portion of it in a stablecoin.

I would view the migration to V2 largely as an ops runway. It appears most members are willing to YOLO ETH in the long-term and it’s my firm belief that so long as we are able to keep a 12-month runway for ops in v2, we’ll be able to capture the upside on ETH post COVID.

I am willing to trust @JamesW or @pet3rpan to receive a large portion of shares with the pure intent to send them directly to V2 and issue equivalent shares to everyone currently in V1.

I am also happy to help coordinate on the V2 migration, sponsor proposals, make sure to vote yes on the member proposals, and all the small things that will be necessary to get V2 into a functional place.

1 Like

Proposal submitted on chain.

450 shares, 1781 total after proposal = 25%.

These shares will then be rage quit, ETH collected, then made as tribute the MetaCartelv2 DAO which shares are being distributed 1:1 from the MetaCartel DAO as we speak.


To continue the complete migration from V1 to V2, we will be doing two proposals withdrawing ETH from V1 to the Paladin’s multisig (3 of 4).
The first proposal will be for a tiny amount of shares to make sure the process works. Assuming it works, the second proposal will be for a huge amount of shares (~1million), for the final transfer of ETH to V2.

First small test proposal to Paladin Multsig (3 of 4):

The Rage Quit of 4 shares to the Paladin’s multisig worked.

We will now be doing a Rage quit proposal on 1 billion shares.

If you want to be part of a historic moment, you should vote “For” to rage quit 1 BILLION shares from MetaCartelDAO v1! ? ! ?