SUDAO-IP-17 - Repayment of Eth Denver sponsorship support SIGNAL

SUDAO-IP-17

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 to the four addresses that made payments for the sponsorship with the corresponding USDC amount on the Polygon network. To view these please see the google doc link above.

(this proposal requires five likes before moving forward)

Nb this proposal has been posted already under SUDAO-IP-16 in the wrong area of our discourse forum. On chain action changes have been made so please read carefully.

5 Likes

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.

1 Like

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


Hey guys I wonder if this is even necessary to go to snapshot as this might be eligible to come out of the content teams multi sig which doesnt require a vote. Or maybe there’s a more appropriate team?

I’m easy either way. Do we have a limit set on transaction sizes for the Content team? Or have they got a budget set already that this would detract from?

I think this does not need to go to a vote.
Berry, maybe fill the SU DAO-Budget Submittal Form : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17PRtO3dimK_V5TqOgaztdC6ay2K11FtRzjbB3X-YIo4/edit#gid=1998681683
Select the Content team tab and input the amounts for each contributor.
Check with timigraphicks as he is the team lead and should be the one that signs this off.

2 Likes

Thanks neon! Seconding this.

Ive made a request on the google doc as requested :pray:

Thank you Berry for setting this proposal up, but as suggested by Neon and FruityCup, the budget could be taken from the Content’s multisig. I’ll have a look at the spreadsheet and figure out how they could be sent to the appropriate addresses.

Should have been a vote in the beginning period. Like Ive mentioned back then.
I can have a $1,200 pizza party to promote SUDAO and then send a bill ?
I agree we should pay, this wasn’t Berry’s doing and appreciate him stepping in.
The DAO should have been made aware of this. I was in the design competition and this was not even mentioned. It was one UMA and one SU logo that was all that was mentioned in the rules.
Did UMA pay half?

I disagree why should the content team have to pay for all of this?