Leaving the GHO Liquidity Committee: DeFi Newspeak
I’ve resigned from the GHO Liquidity Committee and would like, in this blog post, to share more context on its adventures and the learning we can draw from it. Onchain message from tokenbrice.eth Signer removal transaction For those whose first reaction will be “ain’t ready all of that,” here is a recap of the main shortcoming I see in the committee that led to my decision: The committee’s operating model is inefficient and prevents a coherent vision from emerging and being delivered. The committee’s scope of responsibilities is unclear, leading to a passive attitude (towards governance mishaps) assumed by most members. The committee mainly comprises governance professionals who lack any serious expertise in the topic at play – liquidity management. It results in inefficient operations, conflicts of interest because of their numerous other commitments, and subpar use of the Committee’s resources. Governance is always a challenge. Indeed, it can seem insane to give power to random people on the internet, and it often is. There is a built-in democratic assumption in governance operations – although most governances are purely plutocratic – that severely hinders any serious structuration that would enable delivering upon commonly agreed goals. The GHO Liquidity Committee was appointed by the Aave governance precisely because it recognized – in a flash of lucidity – its incompetence and ineptitude in directional liquidity management.
