Yup, i was on it, got my answer for the first question and the confirmation here
Any insight you might share about the second one ? I think it would be a good idea to not keep the entire treasury in CFG, there is many example of treasury from protocol/dao that got shrunk by the recent bear market (DyDx, Aave, Uniswap etc etc ).
So is it possible for us to vote on a proposal like this and does the Polkadot/Centrifuge Governance āCodeā allow us to hold different assets in the Treasury?
Polkadot/Parity is actually already discussing a multi-currency treasury: META: Moving the Treasury Off the Relay Chain Ā· Issue #5293 Ā· paritytech/polkadot Ā· GitHub and itās something Iāve advocated for within the Polkadot community arleady. I think it will take a bit of time to develop this but I do very much agree with you that this is something we should look towards integrating.
Sorry Iām a bit ignorant when it comes to the Polkadot ecosystemā¦
Iāve only worked on creating DAOs via the OpenZepplin Governor template on some EVM chains .
But yeah @ImdioR@lucasvo I think that having the choice of swaping some CFG hold in our treasury for StableCoins (most likely Ausd in our case) is the path forward to assure the perennity of the Centrifuge Protocol/Dao !
So basically, as CFG Token accrue in the Centrifuge Treasury, community could choose to Swap some CFG for a StableCoin (Ausd or else). This would allow us to preserve the Treasury from the inherent volatility of the CFG Token. Doing this will/should allow us to have better visibility on how much we have and what we could fund with the Treasury (Credit Group, Analytics Tools, etc etc ā¦).
Something that would be very nice to do with the part of the Treasury that would have been swapped would be to earn yield on it, so we donāt let the Treasury capital stay idle and we keep the Treasury growing.
For the Governance Scheme, as I stated before Iām not very knowledgeable about how Polkadot work, but basically, it would follow the current Centrifuge voting process (RFC then Onchain voting) but I canāt really tell you how it would look code wiseā¦
As for the RFC, as Lucas stated, the Polkadot governance scheme doesnāt allow us to keep a multi-currency treasury as now, so I might wait until Parity find a way to allow that and then yeah for sure I will find the time to do it !
I still got some more general question about this fee bumpā¦
First - I see that you guys are still doing some testing on the fee bump on GitHub, So as now the feed bump is not activated and we are still waiting on few things on your end correct ?
Second - What about Tinlake? Will there be ever fee taken from operation that are done on Tinlake ? Because as the Centrifuge Partnership with Maker is getting deeper (Sup BlockTower ) and deeper I donāt really see Maker using a bridge.
Pretty sure MakerDao wonāt want to use a bridge to connect to Centrifuge RWA (on the CentChain) and actual pool will need to be transferred to the CentChain and this will take timeā¦
Maybe you have more information about Centrifuge and Maker than me, but, to me, it seem unlikely to see Tinlake dying on the medium term, if not ever, hence my question on Tinlake fee.
The team is currently working on a proposal to increase the utility of CFG to a) turn on protocol fees (e.g from locking NFTs and b) staking in pools (use your CFG to vote on upcoming pools)
