Overall, I’m supportive, but would like to share some comments:
- Glo Team: I’ve met various team members at Glo over the past year. My view is this is a legit initiative with a professional, mission-focused team.
- GiveDirectly: GiveDirectly has a very strong track record in terms of execution and transparency. They are widely respected in the international development community. Their ethos of expanding financial freedom and economic opportunity also feels very aligned with crypto values, even though the mechanism is different.
- Risks: I don’t feel qualified to assess the risk of a new stablecoin project. Someone should review the audits. How robust are the proof of reserves? I would encourage the Glo team to share more on these points. (Maybe they are already in their docs / website; I haven’t done the diligence myself …)
- Treasury Diversification: From a treasury management perspective, the proposal feels reasonable. Many DAOs hold a mix of stables (DAI, USDC, etc). An amount like 10% of stables feels like the upper limit of what one might put into a smaller project. However, looking at the current Uniswap pools, the TVL is still quite small (<$1M) so it might be better to rampup, eg, $50K / month, until the project has greater adoption.
- Meta Point: I don’t like the idea of voting frequently on piecemeal changes to the treasury composition. If this proposal finds support here, then my recommendation would be packaging it as part of a larger treasury diversification proposal that incorporates multiple concerns, like this one.