First, congratulations to being the first one brave enough to make a post, requesting for comments on a potential proposal.
Now to the substance of the matter. I have been hearing from the AMA’s about the synergies of DEXs and Lending protocols, but I do acknowledge @Chris_V 's concerns of performance. Perhaps the SaucerSwap & Bonzo Finance teams could talk about the synergies and performances of DEX and lending protocols from other chains to give some kind of idea of the benefits. Some metrics like the TVL, trading volume changes of the DEX or DEX token pre- and post launch of a Lending protocol. Probably AMA questions, which one is coming up this weekend for SaucerSwap.
As for risks, Brady has covered them (except for network risks, but that’s pretty much a given building on any DLT). But if Brady could reiterate the illiquidity-risk mitigation the protocol have here, it would reassure users. A lot of it was mentioned in the June 08 2024 AMA, but a Sparknotes version would be appreciated.
As for the allocation of DAO treasury, I don’t know how much is in the treasury account currently. I do recall a question to the SaucerSwap team about the treasury, and they did give us numbers at the time and I believe mentioned there would be some way to easily see the account token and values. Something like a webpage showing this, or the contract deployments docs page updated to have the treasury account listed. Once I see the treasury amounts, I would be better able to comment on the proposed deposit amounts. I will say I do like the hybrid approach.
The final thing I would comment on is the duration, more specially after the 12 months period. I personally think the default position should returning the tokens to the treasury, unless there’s a proposal to keep the liquidity on the protocol (or maybe even add to it). It would also incentivize the DAO to keep an active eye on the Bonzo protocol, while being flexible to look at other protocols to potentially bootstrap.