Hey, I’m happy to see this proposal and strongly support the idea of diversifying/derisking the treasury as soon as the legal concerns are alleviated. It makes sense to do this regardless of whether we think about it from the mark-to-market value’s perspective ($6 billion) or from the unissued shares perspective.
However, I have some comments, perhaps to consider in your working group.
First, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “delivering value to relevant stakeholders.” It is clear that Uniswap is not a traditional business. The main role of the DAO, as I see it, is to govern the protocol, work with, and support the different actors in the ecosystem. UNI token holders are surely one of them, but the protocol would still work without the token, while without LPs, traders, or working smart contracts, it would have zero value. Uniswap is also not a typical DAO in the way a lot of the development and research work is done by Uniswap Labs, who do not participate in the governance, do not have any claims to the DAO-controlled operating income from the protocol, and have their own path to sustainability. Funding protocol/ecosystem development from the treasury is still an important matter, but it’s not an existential one, allowing the treasury burn and allocation to be more conservative.
Second, all DAOs are only a few years old. Sustainability to perpetuity is not a basic goal; it’s a very aspirational goal, in my opinion, something that no DAO can confidently say they have achieved. Moreover, we have seen a few DAOs being good at treasury management and many that have screwed up very badly. (Interestingly, the Golem Network probably has one of the most sustainable treasuries in DeFi, precisely because they do almost nothing with it.) Studying the good examples is not a bad idea, but consider the failures as well. Not just Lido, but also Ooki DAO and The DAO. Commit resources to some form of internal red-teaming.