It seems like lately the core contributors have been MIA. There have been several snapshots that have not moved forward to proposals and there was no March call. We are getting a change in security council without any reassuring explanation. Moonwell momentum has been steadily building with card and accounts, hate to see any disengagement. Maybe there is a lot going on behind the scenes…
To my knowledge, the March call (and all calls moving forward) will be taking place at the end of the month, so the next call should be next week, IIRC. As for the rest, I can’t really speak to, though with the cards and virtual accounts, I’m sure there’s a lot going on. FWIW, I’m working on a couple proposal ideas myself.
1 Like
@surfingdegen March call will be this upcoming Thursday (and every final thursday of the month going forward), announcement is coming at the start of the week!
1 Like
GM @surfingdegen! The Snapshot proposals you mentioned (IDRX, AVAIL) didn’t advance to onchain voting, as Gauntlet determined they’re currently unsafe to list. This was communicated in their respective forum posts.
MORPHO, however, is likely to proceed to onchain voting, pending Gauntlet’s initial risk recommendations. Cheers!
Thanks, I was more specifically referring to Morpho, VVV, and eUSDC. I believe eUSDC received Gauntlet feedback, while VVV and Morpho passed without additional discussion. I compare these to the rapid processing of the virtual token. Should the process of snapshot included a gauntlet assessment before it’s put to vote (for example eUSDC)? And, would this allow a more automated process from snapshot to proposal? Just thinking out loud here.
USDe feedback: Add USDe (Ethena USD) Token to Moonwell Markets on Base and Optimism - #9 by Gauntlet
VVV feedback: Add VVV market to Moonwell on Base - #9 by Gauntlet
We should see Morpho feedback provided by Gauntlet this week. This process is already codified in the Moonwell Asset Listing Framework. Following a successful Snapshot vote, Gauntlet will provide their initial analysis and parameter reccomendations before and onchain vote is conducted.
Just to expand a bit more. While the framework for listing a token is there, should the project also be required to pay gauntlet for a pre assessment. Gauntlet could then include the pre assessment in the snapshot. The pre assessment could indicate a security risk (low-high), with cap recommendations (refer to the gauntlet eUSDC discussion reply). Now if the snapshot is passed, then the proposal is automatically generated. For additional protection, maybe the quorum is set higher.
So maybe the issue here is gauntlet is saying “does not recommend” but then states However, if the community elects to proceed with the onboarding of VVV as collateral, Gauntlet provides the following risk parameter recommendations to mitigate potential risks. and then the snapshot passes.
This is why a gauntlet pre-assessment could be necessary. In both eUSDC and VVV the gauntlet assessment comes too late? What am I missing? Thx
If Gauntlet conducted the assessments prior to Snapshot voting then it would incur a ton of extra/unnecessary work as they would need to conduct risk analysis on every asset, no matter the quality of the project or if said project could realistically pass a temperature check. The Snapshot serves as a sort of firewall / filter.
Which is why I suggested the applicant pay for the pre assessment. After all, gauntlet is doing it anyway. eUSDC as an example. Was Gauntlet paid for the eUSDC assessment? And if so, by who?