Improvements for Listing Committee

Summary

During the first epoch of Listing Committee, we found things that can be improved. So here we suggest a few improvements to make Listing Committee work better and more efficiently.

Details in Specification section.

For

Adopt all the changes, see Specification

Against

Do nothing

Motivation

During the first epoch of Listing Committee, we found something that can be improved:

  • Lack of transparency to community and potential partners who are interested in working with / or already actively using Cream
  • Compensation vesting schedule takes too long. 25 CREAM/month vesting in 12 months doesn’t make sense
  • Lack of standardized process
  • Lack of resources to get additional help when needed
  • No minimum commitment required for listing committee members

Background

As voted before, Listing Committee will take care of the light proposals for the whole protocol, including:

  • Asset Listing
  • Reserve Factors
  • Collateral Factors
  • Collateral Caps

Specification

New rules added:

  • A budget of $5,000 stables per epoch. This can be used at the Listing Committee’s discretion. We anticipate it being used for dashboards / interns
  • Listing Committee members must propose at least 1 vote per quarter — otherwise their spots are automatically put up for revote (they can be re-elected)

Existing rules modified:

  • Compensation vesting period: from vesting over 12 months to vesting over the epoch, meaning 25 CREAM to Listing Committee members at the end of every month.
  • Minimum voting time: from 72 hours to no minimum voting time

This might not be the final version for voting.
Opinions are welcome. Feel free to discuss in the thread.

2 Likes

Agree with the more general shortcomings of the listing committee with respect to transparency, communication, and commitment. However, I fail to see how the solution proposed above would succeed in making any lasting changes for the following reasons:

  • There is already a standardized process defined here, but is not being followed or updated.

  • Unclear how vesting monthly vs yearly would make disinterested members suddenly active.

  • 1 vote per quarter is way too low a threshold for participation, why not bi-weekly or at least monthly? Considering this is a core business function it does not make sense for it to be treated like a quarterly board call.

  • meta-gov, rolf, max, vote on everything, while calvin and ben don’t. Have you spoken to them and asked what would make them more active? This isn’t a dig at them, Calvin for example is one of the hardest working and most talented builders in this space.

What you define here is an organizational problem, which needs a concrete plan developed in partnership with the existing listing committee. For example:

  • Who is accountable for the top of the funnel?
  • Who is accountable for the follow-up with the applicants?
  • Who is accountable for posting to the forum?
  • What specifically is the role of the intern(s)?

I understand that its also possible I’m out of the loop and the listing committee has already produced such a plan internally, but would appreciate if that was made clear in the proposal.

I don’t know how much of the listing team discussions are “confidential” since they sometimes include information about projects that are requesting listings that aren’t public info yet. Moving as much of the discussion to discord in a publicly viewable channel that only listing and core team members can send messages in would be a big boost for transparency.

For transparency, standardized process, and min requirement from committee members I have a suggestion but it’s not necessarily a good idea. Early on in the first listing committee epoch I suggested forking the Maker Collateral Onboarding Process (example). I think it was a bit too process heavy when we were just figuring out how to work together and coordinate overall. This would make it clear to teams wanting to list their asset what is still needed from them to get it through a vote and we can dedicate specific committee members to different parts of the process to ensure everyone is contributing. The docs @setninja linked about listing process are more about external parties not the listing committee directly so is non-exhaustive. Theres often many more considerations that take place not mentioned in the doc like DEX/CEX liquidity, smart contract risk, expected asset utilization, etc. which I think the Maker framework addresses.

Overall i think having more defined roles that individual members can own would be helpful

One big question I would like to know as a CREAM holder and member of the first epoch is how effective has the listing committee structure actually been?

  • Have the assets we listed generated higher revenue than assets pre-committee?
  • Have faster updates to collateral caps helped grow TVL?- Have we increased the servicable market of CREAM?
  • Is v1 growth and listing committee needed when Iron Bank has similar revenue, better risk/reward, and doesn’t go through listing committee?
  • Should we be more aggressive with adding new collateral types like LP tokens, synthetic assets, derivatives, ETFs, etc. if we are going to keep v1 active?
1 Like