Nice work on the proposal Bagel.
I like the idea behind the NFTfi Spice strategy but am against major/complete liquidations of positions for projects that have been voted in.
There’s been plenty of discussion about PUNKs being overweighted in the treasury and as a yield returning asset it has not provided the yield some other positions have done. There’s certainly an argument to rebalance some of those holdings for larger yield generating, however considering long term holdings for the FloorDAO the PUNK holdings are going to be the most stable in value store which should be part of the consideration when rebalancing.
Removing 100% of the Squiggle LP is not something that should be done.
From my point of view FloorDAO is there to generate self sustaining yield by creating liquidity markets for NFTs. When the DAO votes in a collection that is a confirmation that the DAO will allocate liquidity towards the collection for that sweep, and then potentially other gauge war votes in the future. The DAO should not be removing existing NFT positions to hold unused ETH (even if it’s staked earning yield) to increase yield.
So yes, rebalance the treasury to free up 10% of the funds mentioned above that could be redistributed to better NFT yield for Milady and to test out Spice, but the remaining ETH should remain in positions that back collections voted in by the DAO.
These two strategies might even tie in nicely with the other proprosal open.
Side note: I accept that there are times when liquidating treasury assets are required, but for me that would only to extend the runway for paid members of the team who are vital for the ongoing delivery of an improved FloorDAO.