Hey team—just a couple of points:
- The expense line considers all outflows as “grants”. This can be further parsed into individual categories since grants is just one line item. Example below:
A large portion of the outflows has historically gone towards treasury-based delegation, which is not an expense—just a flow of tokens to DAO-owned/controlled Franchiser contracts. This makes the “expense” during Q4 2023 look very large while it isn’t.
-
I would refrain from considering the unlocks from the token vester contracts as income since that could have future unwanted implications. Therefore, we probably don’t want an income statement at all. The best path would just be a “token flow statement” that points only towards the movement of UNI. We also do not want to imply any profit. This is especially the case if we want to view the treasury as an issuance vehicle as opposed to a pure balance sheet.
-
Once a legal entity is in place, however, we can structure an accounting setup that accommodates for operating and non-operating income. A more formalized non-native token balance sheet that pertains to the DAO as a whole—and not solely to a certain working group—can more feasibly be constructed then.
-
I would just zero out any dust tokens in the treasury and would not include them as part of a balance sheet (“on-chain treasury balance”):
