SUDAO-IP-16: Repayment of Eth Denver sponsorship support (Proposal needed to reposted)

SUDAO-IP-16

Repayment of Eth Denver sponsorship support

Rationale
In the run up to Eth Denver it was clear that there was not enough time to finish the SUDAO governance system, nor the treasury management systems, required to make a payment to cover our sponsorship of the event.
A plea was submitted to any SuperUMAn who might be able to lend stables to the DAO pending repayment once governance and treasury management had been setup. This plea was met by four SuperUMAns and the payment was made on time to the benefit of the DAO.
This proposal is aimed at making those who lent stables to the DAO whole.

Content of the Proposal:
That the SUDAO Treasury team make plans and deploy a mechanism to repay those who lent funds.

The funds lent, along with proof can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/191WxYRJaYshMG3pCfzkPl3E9qeRtFk0dz7yasQBFjDk/edit#gid=0

Reasoning:

SUDAO always pays its debts.

What on-chain actions might this proposal entail:
A payment from the multisig.

(this proposal requires five likes before moving forward)

5 Likes

Hey Berry, thanks for setting this up!

can you include the address where the funds will be sent to in this proposal? and is this being sent to one person so they redistribute or to everyone’s various addresses?

1 Like

Thanks for getting this up, Berry! This was for the POG sponsorship at ETH Denver where the SuperUMAns and UMA got a lot of publicity. Like Berry mentioned there was a small group that stood up to front the funds for this opportunity. For the sponsorship price, everyone got a lot of exposure at the event and online. It was also a lot of fun for all. I support this proposal and thanks again to everyone who contributed.

Hi Henry. I wondered whether to include that or not. I decided to let the treasury management team determine the best course of action. Four transactions might be annoying, using a multisender might be problematic and then sending to one person could be against the rules.

What we can do is incorporate feedback from one of our treasury team into the next stage of the discourse?

1 Like

We had two pogs that made it into production which we were only supposed to get one :raised_hands:
FJqAWCKWQAsRkHT

Hey Berry I just noticed this proposal is in the wrong place! Its supposed to go up under ‘signal phase’ if you could please take this down and move it to the appropriate area ser! Sorry for any inconvenience :frowning:

1 Like

Also dont be afraid to reach out to the governance team if you need any help or clarifications!

1 Like

Ah ha! I knew it needed to be signalled but somehow didnt see the segment when i came to post. Is there a way for a discourse admin to move the thread or do i need to repost?

Please share a link to the new proposal here if you do remake it.

would need to be reposted! sorry for the trouble!