Absolutely love the direction Sanctum is taking with governance. In order for the community to begin drafting good proposals and to be able to discuss proposals in an intelligent manner, we need to have a foundation to work with.
The largest DAO in our ecosystem preaches certainty, alignment and transparency. I believe on a foundational level, we can agree with this. Of course we can add our own flare to this, but it’s a great starting point.
I’d like to propose that the next vote be: if we should do a community audit. It’s a simple vote that will give us time to come up with other proposals and demonstrate the commitment to governance. I don’t know what would be a reasonable timeline to get the audit done, but that’s something that we could discuss.
Just wanted to get the ball rolling and get some discussion going!
One angle to chew on: what exactly would the audit cover? Financials, decision-making processes? Keeping it vague might spark broader input.
Either way, it’s a solid convo starter. My sub take is that this feels like a smart, grounded first step -nothing too wild, just enough to get the gears turning and test the community’s appetite for self-reflection. What’s your hunch on how receptive folks will be?
It would be a token transparency audit. I’m not sure if we’re allowed to talk about other projects here… I want to post an example but don’t want to ruffle any feathers. Let’s see if anyone from the team replies in the next day or so, and if they don’t, we can go bother Eno…
Also, I think the community should be receptive of this… it creates a lot of alignment and transparency. And should give us a much better understanding of certain things…
So if an audit will increase transparancy, then what? What happens next? Will others feel more confident and jump into investments with Sanctum?
Or will it just make the Community feel better?
Because , currently, i dont see where transparancy has any correlation with price?
Short term scenario? A successful audit might spark a pump—speculators love “news.” Think 5-20% bump if the market’s paying attention (check historical pumps post audit for projects like sushi swap).
Long way scenario? Ties more to demand (usage, staking, token burns) than transparency. An audit doesn’t make Sanctum’s token moon unless it unlocks new utility or inflows.
You’re right to question this transparency doesn’t directly juice price. It’s a trust multiplier, not a demand driver. From defi safety, audited protocols have lower exploit rates, but TVL grows more from utility or marketing.
Price tracks BTC/ETH trends, hype cycles, and tokenomics way more than audit reports bla bla bla. So, if Sanctum’s audit says all clear it might stop a sell-off from skeptics, but don’t expect a flood of buyers unless the project’s already got momentum.
Transparency will help with all decision making in the future. The better informed we are, the better decisions we can make, which should eventually lead to positive PA.
Great points! I just think a good foundation is important. If we are going to try to come up with proposals on a weekly basis, we also need to buy time… it’s just a simple vote which will buy time, build trust and confidence in various ways.
is this more from the point of view that we all know exactly what numbers we are working with from the community funds when we are drafting and discussing proposals?
Not sure if everyone in the community knows how much are in the community reserves…and proposals could be about spending from those reserves
Is this a one and done proposal? One audit for the past? A snap shot from now until then…but then what about later? We will see things, good and better, and then what do we do with the results? Use it as PR and marketing material to send the project to the moon or realize something isnt right and we will spend the next few months (hopefully) fighting to decide on corrective actions, then work on PR to make us feel better?
Audits are tools of improvement. You will always find something that could have been done better. Are we ready for what we uncover and its affects? Because if anything is perceived as a big deal we could set everything back, and then we will have a hell of a time cleaning up.
Just voicing my concern, that we shouldnt get carried away with market sentiments and drama of Ben Chow and Meteora, and spill it over into Sanctum. But just an opinion, Im all for following the path of Governance and popular opinion
I don’t think this proposal is coming from a place of mistrust (at least for me it personally isn’t). J from the team had mentioned in another thread that an audit will eventually be coming anyways.
Maybe an audit isn’t specifically what is required but I think the community needs to be on the same page on what’s in the community reserve, what are some of the future plans/emissions from these reserves (plans to set aside a % required for future AD campaigns, potential future ASRs if we collectively agree to continue on with it after the next 6 months…)
Do we all know that community reserves is 30% of total supply (which is 1B)
Of that 300M, 30M is for ASR, so 10%
I’d assume we’d have to set aside some % for future things
So if we had gone through with Cloud2, another 10M, which is 3.33% of the original 300M…that 10M could be a much higher % after accounting for the ASR portion and a % set aside for future endeavors…
I’m assuming not everyone may know this info, so an “audit” of some sorts will get us all aligned in this regard
If everyone knows exactly what numbers we have to work with, we’ll be better informed and can draft better proposals in the future while preventing chucking potentially absurd numbers in proposals that could be crippling
I think a better informed community who is tasked with drafting proposals provides economic value to CLOUD long term
I’m not suggesting this hoping there is one piece of info that’s going to take us to the promise land. But if the plan is to continually create proposals that create economic value, we need to create a strong foundation where we can work with transparent information.
Great questions -I think you’re spot on to be thinking about the long game here. A one-and-done audit could absolutely just be a snapshot, whether it’s digging into the past or scoping out the present, but you’re right to ask: then what? If it’s a look back, we might get a mix of wins to celebrate and warts we can’t ignore. If it’s a now until X deal, it’s still just a moment in time-Sanctum’s not static, so a single audit won’t cover what’s next unless we make it a habit. Either way, the results aren’t the end; they’re fuel. PR ammo to hype us up? Sure, if it’s good. A wake up call to fix stuff? That’s trickier but maybe more valuable.
I totally get the improvement angle audits aren’t about finding perfection. They’re about spotting where we can level up. But yeah, readiness is the kicker. If we uncover something small, we can probably handle it quietly. If it’s a bombshell, though? That could rattle confidence, spark endless debates, and worst case grind momentum to a halt while we scramble to patch the narrative. The cleanup you mentioned could be a nightmare if we’re not prepped.
Your point about market noise and Ben/Meteora drama spilling over hits home. Sanctum doesn’t need to inherit someone else’s mess or get caught up in hype cycles that fade fast. Governance could be our backbone here let the community weigh in, set some ground rules, and keep us focused on the mission instead of chasing sentiment or dodging pitchforks. I’m with you on following that path, but maybe we should push for clarity upfront: what’s the audit’s scope, who acts on it, and how do we keep it from turning into a circus?
Ma two cents let’s treat this as a first step, not a one-off. Build a process so we’re not just reacting but growing. Thoughts on how we’d define that scope to keep it sane?
Who is doing the audit? Scope of the audit? Or purpose of the audit?
Do we want to audit to ensure the tokenomics behind the LSTs are sound? Do we want to ensure noone is front running or profiting on the side from Sanctum business? Or, are we going on a fishing expedition?
I hate audits, and try to avoid them as much as possible. But understand why theyre necessary, and want to stress if we go down this road. It is an expense, not a revenue producing task. Its a distraction most of the time. And it usually causes a short term decline in price, but possibly benefit long term goals
An audit builds confidence in the project. I’ve seen sites like Kamino finance talked about as being good because they have something like 8 audits which means their financials are in order & they care enough to prove it. I don’t know the details of how it’s done.
transparency doesn’t directly juice price. It’s a trust multiplier, not a demand driver. From defi safety, audited protocols have lower exploit rates, but TVL grows more from utility or marketing.
all clear 
it might stop a sell-off from skeptics, but don’t expect a flood of buyers unless the project’s already got momentum.
let’s treat this as a first step, not a one-off. Build a process so we’re not just reacting but growing. Thoughts on how we’d define that scope to keep it sane?