Regarding the Curve LP tokens transferred as part of the CGP: The transfer is described in the CGP, but of course there should have been more context on it - that’s a miss on my side. I created a PR to the CGP text just now to add that context.
Repeating this context here too for visibility:
The reasoning behind this transfer is as follows. The 20m Curve Pool was created by the Mento Reserve as part of CGP 80: Move Mento-Owned cUSD<->USDC Liquidity from Mobius to Curve. The USDC in this pool are reserve collateral, and the cUSD are still owned by the reserve and, therefore not in supply until someone buys them out of the pool and adds USDC collateral by doing so.
With the Curve LP tokens currently sitting in the Celo Governance Proxy and not in an account controlled by the Mento Reserve, the Mento Reserve cannot react quickly if it needs to touch this USDC collateral (currently about 9.5M) - it requires another CGP to move them. That should have ideally been avoided by sending the LP tokens to a Mento Reserve address as part of CGP 80 in the first place and was avoided for all the other pools created by governance and owned by the Mento Reserve (for example the WBTC/WBTC pool and the WETH/CELO pool).
So this transfer of the Cure LP tokens is NOT a transfer of ownership (funds were always Mento Reserve owned) but is simply to make sure that the Mento Reserve stays operational and can access all the collateral in a timeline manner if it needs to, for example, if it needs to refill the Mento cUSD<->axlUSDC pair with USDC. This felt like a pure house-keeping item which is why both, Luuk and I, thought it’s fine to be added to this proposal.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns!
@ericnakagawa and @0xj4an-work pointed out last night that the current JSON specifies an approval of 1.7M cUSD instead of the intended 1.6M cUSD.
Despite going through multiple review rounds, this was only found yesterday night. I take the blame for it and should have checked better.
The Approvers suggested starting with an initial 100K cUSD claim, sending that back to the community treasury, and adding the Tx ID to this Thread as proof, which we will do.
I would like to continue the conversation there and gather your and other stakeholders’ input. If we want to diversify into ETH and/or BTC - I think the most straightforward and least costly process would be to make a decision soon (in the next 2-3 weeks) on how much of the cUSD the Celo Comunity Treasury would like to have in ETH and/or BTC instead and settle that in a single proposal with Mento.
Given the Treasury Diversification discussion can take longer than a few weeks - I’ve already started working on an alternative solution with @roman that can be submitted as a follow-up proposal to CGP115 that would settle the 10m cUSD in 6 equal tranches (with CGP115 being the first tranche) using 30-day moving average CELO prices on the day of transfer of each remaining tranche.
We’ll have a draft ready early next week for review and an alternative/compliment to this diversification discussion.
Thanks @roman and @LuukDAO. Excited to hear that the dollar cost averaging idea is workable. The new thread around managing the treasury is also quite thoughtful
@roman@marek@rene_celo@ericnakagawa I have a solution that does not require Mento to sell any BTC/ETH and Celo Community Fund to sell any CELO right now. Would you open to discuss?
