For more info on Mandated Governance, check out the governance blog at xtoken.vote
The xToken team believes that the Ren and Filecoin protocols are innovative projects expanding the available services and value propositions for the DeFi space. In applying xToken’s Mandated Governance approach to AIP-13, however, we have determined that consistent with our mandate the Samuelson fund will vote Yea, while the Buchanan fund will vote Nay.
In making our voting determination, we have weighed two key components of the Buchanan mandate. The automated preference theme is meant to limit the power held by civil functionaries and bureaucratic administrators. For renFIL, the powers of the EOA (Externally Owned Account) to mint, burn, and alter exchange rates, with the potential to burn tokens of a particular address, is a concentrated administrative position not subject to direct governance. In applying the process architecture theme, we determined that while a potentially good fit in the future, the centralization of current holders and illiquidity of the wrapped (although not underlying) token introduced a level of potential risk for a small group to exercise outsized control beyond the acceptable threshold for the Buchanan mandate. The main concern is that these present potential attack vectors for ingrained interests to exploit in novel ways at the expense of the overall users of the Aave protocol. As the project grows and evolves, the fund would be more than happy to re-examine these factors in the future.
We relied on two tenets of the Samuelson mandate to make our voting determination. The stakeholder equilibrium theme looks to support governance actions that foster a diverse set of stakeholders and use cases for the protocol. As noted in the proposal, adding renFIL as a borrowing and lending asset will provide a service for FIL miners and FIL holders that extends beyond some of the more strictly financial products currently offered by Aave. The multigenerational framework theme emphasizes that there are different needs in an economy at different stages of the lifecycle. For the renFIL listing, while it is still early on for the renFIL token and work remains to be done to increase decentralization and liquidity, the proposal to list initially as a lending/borrowing asset and reexamine use as a collateral asset later fits well with supporting the growth of the protocol while being wary of risk at different stages.
Note on methodology:
Both the xAAVEa (Buchanan) and xAAVEb (Samuelson) funds have voted to support the listing of GUSD. While GUSD has similar administrative powers, we believe that its market positioning as a regulated stablecoin and higher overall liquidity were acceptable under the terms of the mandate.