Proposal #9: DeFi Pulse Collaboration

Lion’s Mane has recommended the following proposal to the DAO based on our previous post.

If DAO members are in favor of the recommendation, a formal [ Governance Proposal ] to the DAO must be made as well the proposal being pushed on-chain and approved to begin the partnership with DeFi Pulse.


The partnership between DeFi Pulse (a website containing analysis and rankings of decentralised finance protocols) (DeFi Pulse) and Tracer DAO (DAO) will leverage DeFi Pulse’s growing community, distribution channels, and content engine to engage DeFi native users, traders and builders. DeFi Pulse plans to work with the DAO and its members to produce content that focuses on educating potential users about technical updates, feature improvements, and statistical analysis of the protocol.


DeFi Pulse requests 2,000,000.00 TCR to be vested in equal monthly installment over a 12 month period, commencing on the date that the DeFi Pulse Proposal is passed by DAO vote as remuneration for its services specified in the Deliverables.

  1. DeFi Pulse Address: 0xB79305e9b2Ee3d2A304B20037DDcA1C1aEBe33F5


If DeFi Pulse is engaged by by a DAO Proposal to provide the services described in this Offer to the DAO, it will provide the services outlined in the following service agreement below:

Service Agreement PDF


If DeFi Pulse is engaged to provide the Deliverables, it will:

  1. For the first 6 months of its engagement, not:

  2. Vote in relation to a Proposal using those TCR tokens received in connection with this Proposal; or

  3. Commence a Proposal.

Conflicts of Interest

In the context of the Deliverables, conflicts of interest include:

  1. Existing Service Providers who are Related Parties; and
  2. Existing (vested and unvested) holderings of TCR Tokens.

One of DeFi Pulse’s employees has been appointed as a Governor for the Tracer DAO. DeFi Pulse is not aware of any other existing conflicts of interest as defined above.


Unless otherwise defined in this Proposal, all terms beginning with a capital letter which are defined in the the Participation Agreement shall have the same meanings herein as therein unless the context hereof otherwise requires.

Copyright Waiver

Copyright and related rights as to this Proposal are waived pursuant to CCO.


Summary as I see it:

For 0.2% of the total TCR supply, DefiPulse is proposing to do the following for 12 months:

  • Do 5 AMAs
  • Display TCR banner ads (unspecified duration)
  • 1 blog post per month
  • 12 new letter sponsorships
  • Educational tweet threads (unspecified amounts)

I’d like to know how this compares to other projects, imo 0.2% of total supply for 1 year of promotion seems a bit steep (but I could be wrong).

1 Like

Great question. Finding a balance with allocations is always a hot topic. We worked with Lions Mane to come up with what we think is a fair allocation for our work and support. This is in line with other DAOs we have worked with in the past. We believe in Tracer and know we can play a huge role in helping the DAO grow and succeed.

A great example of our work can be seen with the Index Coop. We were also early supporters of Index Coop and helped get DAO off the ground. We were also the first index methodologist and created the DeFi Pulse Index(DPI). $DPI now has over 160M in assets under management and is the most successful product in the Index Coop. We took it a step further and have helped create 2 new indices and do not receive any extra allocation for that work because it helps Index Coop and DAO members succeed.


I have now compared the proposed token allocations to what Index Coop and DEXTF has made to Defi Pulse and can conclude that this is indeed a fair price to pay Defi Pulse.

In general, Index Coop is also vesting INDEX to Defi Pulse. However, they have allocated 2% of their total supply to Defi Pulse, albeit on a longer time scale (and Defi Pulse is deeply involved with Index Coop). Whereas DEXTF seems to be paying 1m DEXTF (1% of token supply) according to their Sablier Stream and I can see their logo on the Defi Pulse Newsletters and Twitter threads.

Even if this proposal sounds more like the DEXTF deal than the Index Coop deal, (sponsorship logo ads on newsletters and some tweeter threads instead of full-on co-founders). The total token allocation for Tracer is still lower than either of the two projects I compared with.

I am now ok with the amount of remuneration proposed.

Relevant addresses:
INDEX Vesting to Defi Pulse
Defi Pulse INDEX Vesting Recipient Multisig Signer
DEXTF Recipient (Connected to INDEX Multisig Signer)
DEXTF Vesting Contract (SalaryID = 923)


How did you come up with 6 months of not voting for proposals?
As the conflict of interest is still remaining in the full 12 months of vesting in your proposal. (So also the 6 months after not voting for any proposals).



The 6 months no voting for proposals is based on the fact that the DAO Governance members should be leading the decision on proposals. As an entity we usually defer to the DAO/founding team about what is appropriate duration of sustaining from votes. In this situation we did the same.

I am not a lawyer so unfortunately so I would have to defer to legal teams for a proper answer. I can say in 6 months I believe token distribution will be more solidified and I would assume we (DeFi Pulse) would not have a majority or semi majority voting power at this point. Moreover we do not usually partake in voting with company allocations at this time due to how young the DAOs are.

1 Like

Great work @Beepidibop!

You found much of what i was planning to share. As you have stated this deal with tracer is at a lower allocation than others. Which correlates to how much we think Tracer can grow. Thanks for your support.


I agree. A longer vesting schedule would be much more suitable for a single entity to receive that large of a share, given the current distribution of tokens.

I do, however, believe 0.2% to be a fair amount of total allocation.


DEFI pulse will be great to have in our corner - the remuneration seems fair - having the tokens vest so quickly will require us to have other distributions on foot soon.


What conditions do you imagine would be more suitable?

It’s all clear to me Celey, thanks for explaining. I can agree now. :slight_smile:

I think the price is too steep, for what is delivered, why make such a large commitment of 0.2% of the total supply, I would believe it’s in DefiPulse interest to highlight projects like ours which is trying to innovate without any financial counterpart. If DefiPulse truly supports the project why not give us some initial free coverage and then we can agree on terms later down the road. I don’t see the urgency of rushing into a deal like this, 0.2% of the total supply isn’t a negligible amount.

1 Like

Hey great points here @rocket. @Beepidibop gave a great overview of pricing of similar interactions that we(DeFi Pulse) had with other DAOs. Proposal: DeFi Pulse Collaboration - #4 by Beepidibop

Furthermore, when we are receiving compensation in native tokens we(DeFi Pulse) do not limit ourselves to only do the work that is defined in the proposal. In addition to whats in the proposal we have a lot of intangible value add that has helped the projects we choose to work with. Moreover, it is not be stated on this post but I have previous stated that our distribution channels, content support, and rolodex is open to the Tracer DAO members(like yourself) and Lions Mane team. Hopefully this helps shed some light on the 0.2% allocation.


Thanks for the reply @Celey-DeFiPulse , I see value in the proposal but at the same time, I think it´s too soon for this kind of deals, I would wait for the protocol to get to mainnet , have it run for a month or two to prove itself and then start a significant marketing campaign. Nothing against you or defipulse. My 2 cents.

1 Like

I would agree the timing’s a bit early, but I do think the proposal itself is good.

However, I don’t think there’s anything stopping us from working together and flesh out a concrete start date if this proposal passes.

Thanks for your opinion and thoughts, I take them very seriously. I want to have the community as unified as possible on this decision.

Here is a little bit more food for thought. We actually love to begin working with a project at the “too early” stage. It is a place where we can add an extreme amount of value as a protocol prepares to launch and grow. It is not something that has come up on the forum but feel free to take a look at our track record (see info)
Additionally, we can coordinate the start of the partnership and vesting to be closer aligned to Tracer DAOs roadmap/expected milestones.
This may not change your mind about everything but happy to chat/share more data about our previous track record and why we like being one of the earliest supporters of a project.

cc: @Beepidibop

Snap shot voting can be seen here. Not sure Why I cant edit the post :frowning:

1 Like

Great discussion guys @Beepidibop @rocket. I believe it’s worth pointing out something that @Celey-DeFiPulse touched upon. I see a great deal of unspoken or intangible value that goes along with partnering with the likes of a DeFi Pulse. I envision DeFi Pulse helping Tracer DAO network within the space, particularly with regard to the recruitment of new developers, designers and other resources that can help grow the Tracer ecosystem. Additionally with roughly 100k followers on Twitter DeFi Pulse offers a launch pad for all Tracer releases, ensuring Tracers future white-papers and articles receive the attention they deserve.

Yeah, I’m voting for on this proposal. We can definitely get things started now and hash out the details later. (It’ll take time to hash out the details anyways)

1 Like

A lot of important points have been made here by previous contributors, but I have a few questions that require clarification.
What are the means of measuring the ROI for this particular proposal?
What is the total marketing budget for Tracer Finance? please point me to the documentation if they already exist.

I hope I’m in line with my questions.

1 Like