I am extremely concerned by this. I want Mento V3 and the token launch to succeed. I’m voting NO on MGP-15 as written because the Reserve is the stability backstop, not a recurring operating wallet. That weakens confidence exactly when we need it most.
MGP-15 states the Reserve is ~1.4x collateralized with about $6.7m of overcollateralization. A $3.75m draw removes ~56% of that safety buffer in one step. That’s a major hit to confidence for a system whose #1 job is to preserve the peg.
MGP-10 already proposed selling $9m of Reserve BTC/ETH for funding. Before governance approves more, we need spend-to-date, remaining runway, and what changed vs. the prior budget made just 5 months ago.
If the goal is a token launch, that’s venture-style risk and should be financed via investors / token-sale economics, not by shrinking the insurance fund that protects stablecoins holders.
I will change my vote to YES if MGP-15 is restructured in this manner:
- What is the concrete plan to increase the Reserve buffer and TVL over the next 6 to12 months?
- Treat the full $12.75m as a loan to the Foundation, repaid to the Reserve from protocol fees and/or token launch proceeds (align upside with the Reserve that takes the risk).
- Immediate alignment with Celo: route a defined % of Mento protocol fees into a transparent mechanism (Reserve replenishment first; and then a fee-vault model that creates a clean “More usage = more yield” narrative across the ecosystem).
- Publish a simple dashboard + monthly reporting (Reserve buffer, net revenues, runway) until the loan is repaid and buffers are restored.