Gauntlet <> Compound Renewal
01Summary
Renewal of Gauntlet's 12-month engagement with Compound for market risk management and capital efficiency optimization. Gauntlet will receive quarterly fee payments based on a formula tied to number of assets, total borrow amount, and marginal base fee tier. The proposal includes a refund mechanism if Gauntlet's optimizations cause protocol losses. On-chain actions transfer approximately 8,533 COMP tokens and set up a token stream for payment of approximately 19,910 COMP tokens over the engagement period.
- Type
- treasury allocation
Key changes
- Renew Gauntlet's 12-month engagement for continuous market risk management and capital efficiency optimization across Compound II and Compound III(high)
- Implement quarterly fee payment structure using formula: log(Number of Assets, 10) * Total Borrow * Marginal Base Fee tier bps / 4(high)
- Add refund mechanism where Gauntlet refunds a portion of payment if their risk parameter optimizations incur losses for the protocol(medium)
Notable concerns
- Funding mechanism relies on complex formula that may be difficult to predict or verify quarterly
- Refund mechanism terms require reference to external proposal documentation for full details
- Engagement renewal depends on continued satisfaction with Gauntlet's risk management performance
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
Gauntlet <> Compound Renewal
Background
For the past three years, Gauntlet has worked with Compound to maximize the protocol’s capital efficiency given an acceptable level of market risk.
Full details of the proposal can be found here.
Proposal
A proposal to renew Gauntlet’s 12-month engagement with Compound on continuous market risk management to maximize capital efficiency while minimizing the risk of insolvency and liquidations to create long-term sustainable growth.
Gauntlet’s Risk Management platform quantifies risk, optimizes risk parameters, runs economic stress tests, and calibrates parameters dynamically. Gauntlet uses agent-based simulation models tuned to actual market data to model tail market events and interactions between different users within DeFi protocols. The proposal includes continued support for Compound II, as well as support for Compound III.
The service fee structure will be the same as the previous year’s engagement and calculated quarterly per the following formula: log(Number of Assets, 10) * Total Borrow * Marginal Base Fee tier bps / 4.
To increase its alignment with Compound, Gauntlet will refund a portion of the payment should Gauntlet's risk parameter optimizations incur losses for the protocol during the engagement. For more details, see the full proposal.
By approving this proposal, you agree that any services provided by Gauntlet shall be governed by the terms of service available at gauntlet.network/tos.
03Mismatch analysis
The description outlines a 12-month renewal of Gauntlet's risk management engagement with Compound, describes a quarterly fee formula (without specifying a dollar figure), and mentions a refund mechanism and TOS terms. The calldata shows an upfront COMP transfer plus an approve+createStream pair funding a Sablier stream to the same Gauntlet address, with the stream duration matching the stated 12-month term (Sept 2022–Sept 2023). This split of an initial payment plus a streamed payment is a standard compensation pattern for these renewal proposals and is not explicitly contradicted by the prose, which does not commit to a specific payment mechanism or dollar amount (it only gives the formula for computing fees, which is not verifiable from the calldata alone). All recipient addresses are consistent (same Gauntlet address for both the transfer and the stream), and there is no indication of funds going elsewhere, additional unexplained transfers, or role changes. Because the description does not specify exact dollar amounts, I cannot verify the fee formula against the transferred amounts, which lowers confidence slightly, but there is no evidence of a mismatch — the actions are consistent with a compensation renewal as described. No omissions, extra claims, or target mismatches were found that a delegate would need to be warned about, so this proposal appears consistent, though confidence is only medium due to the inability to fully verify the fee calculation itself.
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0xc00e…6888
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- transfer(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0xD20c9667bf0047F313228F9fE11F8b9F8Dc29bBa", "1": "8533000000000000000000" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0xc00e…6888
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- approve(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0xCD18eAa163733Da39c232722cBC4E8940b1D8888", "1": "19910000631341929468752" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0xcd18…8888
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- createStream(address,uint256,address,uint256,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0xD20c9667bf0047F313228F9fE11F8b9F8Dc29bBa", "1": "19910000631341929468752", "2": "0xc00e94Cb662C3520282E6f5717214004A7f26888", "3": "1664380800", "4": "1695916801" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
| Voter | Choice | % of total | Rationale | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EA0xea6c…3bf7 | For | 306.1K | 29.36% | — | 4y ago |
| 610x6125…96de | For | 256.8K | 24.62% | — | 4y ago |
| 8D0x8d07…a265 | For | 70K | 6.71% | — | 4y ago |
| 3E0x3e41…c049 | For | 66K | 6.33% | — | 4y ago |
| 880x88fb…3981 | For | 50.1K | 4.80% | — | 4y ago |
| 130x13bd…8548 | For | 50K | 4.80% | — | 4y ago |
| B70xb777…e1a5 | For | 50K | 4.79% | — | 4y ago |
| 070x0703…961b | For | 50K | 4.79% | — | 4y ago |
| 210x212b…6db5 | For | 50K | 4.79% | — | 4y ago |
| DC0xdc1f…e432 | For | 50K | 4.79% | — | 4y ago |
| A10xa118…e5db | For | 33K | 3.16% | — | 4y ago |
| DAdakeshi.eth0xe3c9…6b21 | For | 5K | 0.48% | — | 4y ago |
| 0F0x0f4f…006a | For | 3K | 0.29% | — | 4y ago |
| 760x7641…b609 | For | 2.9K | 0.27% | — | 4y ago |
| 660x66cd…65f9 | For | 23.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 840x84e3…5a95 | For | 22.6 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 450x4504…3424 | Against | 4.2 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 940x9497…6eea | For | 2.8 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 230x2368…e99d | For | 2.8 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| DD0xdd4a…86ba | For | 2.8 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| E10xe1d1…951a | For | 2.8 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 050x05ac…646d | For | 2.7 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 610x61d9…b63f | For | 2.7 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| F90xf977…5d89 | For | 2.7 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 3C0x3cd4…1c7c | For | 2 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 1A0x1ace…5ee9 | Abstain | 2 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| E80xe8d8…3f31 | For | 1.7 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 280x281f…9f3d | For | 1.2 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 0C0x0c0b…ac20 | For | 1.2 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 1B0x1b35…f08c | For | 1.1 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| B70xb75a…aa7e | For | 1.1 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 490x49d2…0009 | For | 1 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| B30xb37c…30ff | For | 0.9 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 920x9219…38e1 | For | 0.6 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 310x31b9…944f | For | 0.6 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 2C0x2c4e…a477 | For | 0.6 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 380x382c…be0c | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 010x01a4…2408 | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 080x0815…b740 | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 100x1006…d48a | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| E10xe1a2…1780 | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 5B0x5b90…0fa3 | For | 0.4 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 460x4602…8ed7 | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 710x71cc…992b | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 9A0x9adf…493c | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| CD0xcdaa…f2e5 | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 420x4270…1cf8 | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 9A0x9a84…5601 | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| 860x86a3…a012 | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
| CF0xcf08…f42f | For | 0.3 | 0.00% | — | 4y ago |
07Forum
- Gauntlet <> Compound Renewal ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- Gauntlet delivered quantitative rigor and increased collateral factors across assets without incurring insolvencies despite market volatility over the past year.— pauljlei, RogerS, rleshner
- Having a dedicated risk management party is essential for a leading DeFi protocol and Gauntlet has proven professional execution and improved reporting quality.— RogerS, rleshner, PorterSmith
- Gauntlet's support for Compound III launch with new risk parameters and mechanisms is critical for protocol safety during the transition.— pauljlei, devenmatthews, rleshner
- The insolvency refund mechanism with 30% of minimum fee as backstop significantly aligns Gauntlet's incentives with Compound's success and represents a best practice for protocol services.— pauljlei, devenmatthews, rleshner, PorterSmith
- Gauntlet's clear rationale and models for parameter recommendations help the community understand governance decisions and enable quick onboarding for new community members.— blockchaincolumbia, devenmatthews
- The renewed service fee is competitive and performance-based, with fees adjusting to market conditions and protocol growth through the total borrow metric.— pauljlei, rleshner
- Gauntlet is actively improving transparency and community understanding through new dashboards, FAQs, and educational materials to move from trust-based to verifiable analysis.— pauljlei, blockchaincolumbia, devenmatthews
Arguments against
None surfaced.
Unresolved concerns
- Gauntlet's risk models lack sufficient transparency and explainability; the community should move from purely trust-based evaluation toward 'trust, but verify' with better documentation of simulation inputs, outputs, and sequences.— RogerS, blockchaincolumbia, devenmatthews
- The Risk Dashboard is unintuitive and not user-friendly for community members without advanced risk management expertise, though improvements are underway.— RogerS
- Educational materials on Gauntlet's models are highly technical and not easily accessible to broader governance participants; more accessible content formats are needed.— blockchaincolumbia, devenmatthews
- Timeline for Compound III integration into the dashboard was unclear, with the current Analytics Dashboard and Risk Dashboard only covering Compound II.— dcota
- Potential token selling pressure if Gauntlet converts received COMP to cover operational expenses, though the company has not yet sold any COMP.— pauljlei
Notable participants
- pauljleiGauntlet representative who presented the renewal proposal, provided cost calculations, and responded to community feedback and questions.
- RogerSEarly community supporter who acknowledged Gauntlet's past work quality but raised key concerns about model transparency and dashboard user-friendliness.
- blockchaincolumbiaStudent organization that endorsed the proposal and emphasized the value of Gauntlet's clear rationale for recommendations while agreeing that more accessible educational content is needed.
- devenmatthewsBlockchain at Berkeley representative who strongly supported the proposal, praised the insolvency refund alignment mechanism, and echoed transparency improvement requests.
- rleshnerProminent community voice and Compound founder who enthusiastically endorsed the proposal, praised Gauntlet's performance, and highlighted the insolvency refund as a best practice while disclosing a personal venture fund connection.
- PorterSmithCommunity supporter who confirmed Gauntlet's value as a partner, praised the insolvency refund as creative incentive alignment, and expressed enthusiasm for dashboard improvements.
- dcotaCommunity member who raised a technical question about dashboard coverage of Compound III versus Compound II.
- pauljleiProposal author and Gauntlet representative managing community discussion and providing detailed disclosures about risk management approach and service structure.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- aaveexecutedGauntlet <> Aave Renewal 202382%
- aaveexecutedGauntlet <> Aave Renewal80%
- compoundexecutedDynamic Risk Parameters74%
- compoundexecutedDynamic Risk Parameters - Quarterly Update74%
- aaveexecutedDynamic Risk Parameters72%
- aavedefeatedDynamic Risk Parameters72%
- aaveexecutedQ2 Dynamic Risk Parameters69%
- aavedefeatedQ2 Dynamic Risk Parameters68%
- aavecanceledCut Gauntlet Service Provider Stream58%