# [TFIP-42] — Timelock Migration to Gnosis Safe Multi-Sig (Transition Period)
## **Abstract**
This is a defensive, temporary measure to secure protocol infrastructure during governance migration.
This proposal requests that the TrueFi DAO authorize the transfer of all administrative roles currently held by the DaoGovernor over the Timelock contract `0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07` to the existing New Treasury Gnosis Safe multi-signature wallet `0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b` on Ethereum Mainnet.
This transition is a **temporary security measure** designed to protect protocol-controlled vault factories and legacy smart contracts during the governance migration period. Specifically, this applies to the window in which:
* TRU tokens are locked in the Asset Portal, and
* The BRLA-based governance system on HyperEVM has not yet been deployed.
## **Background & Motivation**
### **Current Governance Architecture**
TrueFi’s on-chain governance currently operates via **Tally(DaoGovernor)**, where TRU token holders stake and vote on proposals. Successful proposals are executed through the **Timelock smart contract**, which acts as the administrator of several legacy components, including:
* Vault factories on Ethereum Mainnet
* Various legacy TrueFi smart contracts
* Other protocol-controlled addresses
**Timelock Address:**
`0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07`
### **The Governance Transition Problem**
TrueFi DAO is undergoing a strategic governance migration:
* TRU (Ethereum) → no longer the primary governance token
* BRLA (HyperEVM) → will become the new governance instrument
This creates a **temporary but critical security gap**:
1. TRU tokens are locked in the Asset Portal and cannot vote
2. BRLA governance is not yet live
3. Cross-chain governance (HyperEVM → Ethereum) is not deployed
During this period, the Timelock could be vulnerable to a **low-participation governance attack**.
### **The Risk**
If no action is taken:
* Governance attacks via Tally remain possible
* Vault factories and legacy contracts remain exposed
* Timelock delays limit the DAO’s ability to respond quickly
## **Proposal**
### **Primary Action — Transfer Tally's admin roles over Timelock contract to Gnosis Safe**
All administrative roles currently held by the Tally shall be transferred to:
**New Admin (Gnosis Safe):**
`0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b`
This Safe is already used as the New Treasury and operates as a **4-of-7 multi-signature wallet**.
### **Why a Gnosis Safe Multi-Sig**
* No single-party control
* Higher resistance to manipulation vs low-turnout votes
* Fully reversible once new governance is live
* Already known and trusted by the community
## **Gnosis Safe Details**
**Safe Address:** 0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b
**Network:** Ethereum Mainnet
**Threshold:** 4 of 7
**Type:** Gnosis Safe
### **Signers:**
AddressSigner0x5D545DE6e81da180dBbb57926a0e49be7c868Fb7 - Stefan Tanase
0x546AB7E55E9c9790679Bb2bE905300322A59Bb10 - 2nd CFO
0x97F8De405D7e70c0F66c2308d9882A9227097d6f - Sebastien Davies
0x25022f216b97641d396e6Efe68ba45F80AD7A56b - Ferengi
0xB2F3cE5e63b0c303C475667f8CB28a47b14b9d9b - Kelvin Sparks
0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2 - Goblin
0x57cD8ecAA060C857B23f9C68853f09dFfC3b7453 - Marcus Leanos
## **Action Items**
### **1.Transfer Admin Roles**
Grant all admin roles to Gnosis Safe
Action Type: grantRole 
To: Gnosis Safe (0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b)
Scope: Timelock contract (0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07)
**2.Revoke Tally Privileges**
After transfer, revoke all admin roles from the Tally to eliminate duplicate control
Action Type - revokeRole
To: DaoGovernor (0x585CcA060422ef1779Fb0Dd710A49e7C49A823C9)
Scope: Timelock Contract (0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07)
**3.Verification**
Core contributors will verify on-chain that:
1. Gnosis Safe holds all required admin roles
2. Timelock holds none
3. A confirmation report is posted to the forum
## **Duration & Reversal**
This is a **temporary arrangement**, remaining in effect until:
1. BRLA is live on HyperEVM
2. Cross-chain governance is deployed and audited
At that point, a new TFIP will transfer control back to DAO governance.
## **Risks & Mitigations**
Risk Mitigation: Signer collusion 4-of-7 threshold, distributed signers 
Key loss: Only 4 required
Governance delay: Public roadmap commitments
Scope creep: No new powers granted beyond Timelock
## **Governance Process**
### **Step 1 — Forum Discussion (72h)**
Community feedback and iteration
### **Step 2 — Tally Vote (Binding)**
On-chain execution of proposal
## **Conclusion**
TrueFi is at a critical point in its governance evolution.
The new BRLA structure introduces a temporary but meaningful security gap. This proposal provides a **practical, transparent, and reversible solution** by transferring control to a trusted multi-sig during this period.
This ensures:
* Protocol safety
* Operational continuity
* Minimal centralization
We encourage the community to support this proposal to enable a secure and orderly transition.
# [TFIP-41]: TrueFi Reconstitution and Transition to Brila
> TFIP-41 has been slightly updated relative to the forum and Snapshot versions
### **Summary**
TFIP-41 proposes the formal reconstitution of TrueFi into Brila, a streamlined and restructured organization designed for sustainable capital deployment across three operating pillars: NFT finance, real-world asset vaults, and treasury management solutions.
This proposal outlines the transfer of all activities, including management and governance mechanisms, from the TrueFi BVI corporate structure to the Brila corporate structure in Panama. It is intended to be the final TFIP under the TrueFi banner.
### **Context and Recap**
Over the past year, TrueFi has undergone a deliberate restructuring process. The organization has been streamlined, operational overhead has been reduced, the balance sheet has been strengthened, and governance inefficiencies have been addressed. Capital allocation has been reoriented toward productive, revenue-generating verticals.
Today, the project is anchored by three core pillars. The first is NFT finance through Cyan, which provides infrastructure enabling NFT-based financing and liquidity access. The second is real-world asset vaults, which facilitate institutional credit extension to vetted borrowers, with yield derived from interest income rather than token incentives. The third is treasury management solutions through Elara, a dollar-referenced treasury asset designed to preserve capital while generating controlled yield and serving as a base liquidity layer across the ecosystem.
These verticals represent the economic engine of the reconstituted project. The restructuring phase is complete. We’re into the execution phase now.
### **Why Reconstitution Is Necessary**
Despite meaningful operational progress, the legacy TrueFi structure imposes structural constraints. The historical token supply creates an overhang. Governance design reflects an earlier stage of the protocol’s life. Prior loan history and reputational complexity introduce friction. Over time, these factors limit flexibility and strategic optionality.
While significant effort has gone into repairing and stabilizing the protocol, sustainable forward growth requires a clean capital structure and a refreshed governance architecture. TFIP-41 formally separates the future operating platform from the historical constraints of the prior structure.
### **Proposal Overview**
Upon approval of this proposal, the existing TrueFi coporate structure entity will not be involved any more in the operatioanl and management activity of the Protocol. The governance forum will remain accessible for creditor-related matters, including ongoing discussions related to Archblock and similar legacy items.
Brila ecosystem will be fully operated and managed by a Panama corporate structure specially designed to oversee and manage the entire protocol (“the Brila Corproate Structure” or “BCS”). The Brilla Corporate Structure will issue the BRLA token and serve as the legal and operational steward of the ecosystem. BCS is able to govern capital allocation, treasury strategy, and execution across the three pillars, providing a clean and flexible operational base aligned with the project's long-term direction.
### **Token Economics: TRU and BRLA**
35% of the total BRLA supply will be allocated to attract TRU holders. The remaining 65% will be allocated toward ecosystem development, operational sustainability, balance sheet strength, and strategic growth initiatives.
A dedicated portal will be available **in the coming weeks**, where TRU holders may deposit their TRU **for a 30-DAY** window (from launch). Upon deposit, holders will be entitled to mint BRLA tokens. The conversion ratio between BRLA and TRU will be determined based on the total amount of TRU deposited into the portal relative to the fixed forty percent allocation reserved for TRU holders.
This structure ensures that the full allocation reserved for TRU holders is distributed transparently and proportionally based on participation. If more TRU holders will participate in supporting the BRLA new vision, the per-TRU BRLA allocation will adjust accordingly. If fewer TRU participants, the conversion ratio will reflect that lower participation. TRU not deposited during the allocated window will not be accepted at a later stage. Detailed technical specifications and timing will be provided prior to the launch of the dedicated portal.
### **Economic Model and Value Accrual**
Brila is structured around three operating pillars: NFT finance through Cyan, real-world asset lending through the legacy vault architecture, and treasury management solutions through Elara. Each of these verticals is designed to stand on its own economically. They are not dependent on token incentives to manufacture activity. They generate revenue through financing spreads, structured credit, and treasury yield strategies. Cyan and treasury management solutions in particular offer meaningful economic spread potential, while the lending vaults provide disciplined, interest-based yield derived from real borrowers.
The objective with BRLA is fundamentally different from earlier crypto token models. The project *will not* rely on emissions to incentivize activity or bootstrap artificial liquidity. There will be no programmatic inflation designed to stimulate short-term engagement at the expense of long-term dilution. Instead, the operating businesses are expected to generate revenue independently. Protocol revenues will accrue to the Foundation treasury and may be deployed by governance to support the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, including grants, liquidity initiatives, partnerships, and other strategic treasury operations.
A key principle of the reconstitution is emission discipline. The historical TRU structure carried significant token overhang relative to the economic output of the protocol. BRLA is being introduced with the intention that token supply growth remains tightly controlled and aligned with the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem.
Any future emissions will be carefully evaluated by governance in the context of the protocol’s development and overall supply dynamics. Governance may from time to time determine adjustments to token supply or treasury operations intended to support the stability and resilience of the ecosystem, which could include discretionary market operations involving BRLA.
The objective is to ensure that protocol activity is supported by sustainable participation and real usage of the network rather than by token issuance designed to artificially stimulate short-term engagement.
BRLA is intended to function as a governance and coordination mechanism within the ecosystem and does not represent any ownership interest, claim on assets, or entitlement to revenues generated by the protocol or the Foundation.
This shift addresses one of the structural imbalances of the legacy system. TRU’s circulating supply expanded materially during periods when underlying protocol activity remained limited. The reconstitution aims to realign token supply dynamics with the sustainable development of the ecosystem.
BRLA is introduced with a focus on responsible supply management and long-term network coordination, avoiding structural overhang from historical emissions and reducing reliance on token issuance to stimulate participation.
### **Ecosystem and Launch Venue**
BRLA will launch on the HyperEVM and position its economic hub within the Hyperliquid ecosystem. While the project will remain cross-chain in product deployment, the primary token and liquidity center will sit on HyperEVM.
This represents a deliberate strategic shift. Centralized exchange listings are operationally costly, structurally restrictive, and often misaligned with smaller, capital-disciplined projects. The legacy TRU footprint on centralized exchanges served a purpose in an earlier phase of the market. For Brila, competing on product quality and economic fundamentals is more important than maintaining expensive exchange relationships.
The Hyperliquid ecosystem offers a more aligned environment: on-chain liquidity, transparent market structure, and lower structural overhead. By anchoring BRLA within HyperEVM, the project aligns itself with an ecosystem that reflects the current direction of market infrastructure while preserving the flexibility to operate across chains.
### **Governance**
Upon completion of the transition period, TRU governance will formally sunset. A new governance framework under BRLA will be introduced by the Panama-based entity. The new governance architecture will be designed to enable clearer capital allocation authority, operational agility, reduced structural deadlock, and stronger long-term economic alignment.
A separate governance framework document will be introduced to detail the mechanics of BRLA governance.
### **Treatment of Legacy Matters**
The reconstitution does not extinguish or ignore legacy matters. However, the loans and defaults being administered by Archblock are not the responsibility of TrueFi (nor have they been since the DAO was first formed). The existing forum will remain accessible for creditor communications. Archblock and related recovery processes will continue independently. Historical obligations are not erased by this proposal.
The objective is to separate forward-facing operations from structural complexity and historical governance while maintaining transparency and continuity where required.
### **Rationale**
TFIP-41 resets the capital structure, removes historical token overhang, eliminates governance inefficiencies, strengthens balance sheet flexibility, and aligns token supply with productive, revenue-generating verticals. The reconstitution enables the project to operate as an economically sustainable platform rather than as a legacy governance shell constrained by its past structure.
### **Implementation Timeline**
Following publication, the proposal will proceed through the standard governance voting process. Upon approval, actual governance procedure will be disconnected and transferred to the Brila Corporate Structure. The dedicated portal will then open for a defined window, after which BRLA issuance will be finalized and TRU will sunset. Specific dates will be published prior to execution.
### **Closing Statement**
TrueFi has spent the past year cleaning up its structure, strengthening its balance sheet, and building revenue-generating verticals designed for durability. TFIP-41 formalizes the transition from restructuring to execution.
This is not an abandonment of TrueFi’s history. It is a structured evolution beyond its constraints. The next chapter begins under Brila.
### Next Steps
Tally vote: The proposal will be posted on Tally for the final vote.
# [TFIP-40.1] Timelock TRU allocation for rebranding and treasury recapitalization
After posting **TFIP-40**, we identified a technical issue with the **execution parameters of the Tally proposal**.
Specifically, the proposal did not leave enough tokens in the source wallet to cover the **Tally execution fees** required for the transaction. Because of this, the transaction fails in simulation and would fail during on-chain execution as well.
To resolve this, we are reposting the **same proposal under TFIP-40.1**, with slightly adjusted parameters so that enough tokens remain available to cover the execution fees.
The **substance of the proposal remains unchanged**.
Background
----------
Following the approval and execution of **TFIP-34 – Foundation Update: Wallet Recovery and Treasury Consolidation**, the Foundation consolidated DAO-controlled assets under a unified operational structure.
Separately, under **TFIP-37 – Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization**, the DAO approved the strategic direction for TrueFi’s rebranding and broader treasury recapitalization initiative.
TFIP-40 was introduced as an extension to authorize the allocation of assets held in a “timelock/public treasury” address to support execution of TFIP-37.
***
## Correction Notice (Form, not Substance)
During the preparation of the on-chain **Tally** execution, we identified a **parameter error** in TFIP-40:
* TFIP-40 referenced the **Timelock smart contract** address: `0x5Fe2F5F2Cc97887746C5cB44386A94061F35DcC4`
* However, the intended target for this action is the **Public Treasury Timelock wallet**: `0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07`
Because these are **different addresses**, the asset inventory is also different. This update is therefore a **correction of form (address + assets)**, not of purpose: the DAO intent remains to allocate relevant public-treasury assets to support the execution of TFIP-37.
***
## Updated Assets (Public Treasury Timelock)
The balances held at `0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07` intended to be allocated under this revised proposal are:
* **6,151.0529 USDC**
* **435,344.2321 TRU**
***
## Proposal
This proposal seeks DAO authorization to:
1. Recognize `0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07` as the **correct Public Treasury Timelock address** referenced in the proposal.
2. Allocate the assets held in this wallet (**6,151.0529 USDC and 435,344.2321 TRU**) to support the execution of **TrueFi Rebranding and Treasury Recapitalization**, as outlined in **TFIP-37**.
3. Transfer these assets to the Foundation-managed operational multisignature wallet: **New Treasury -** `0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b`
4. Ensure the assets remain **fully visible and traceable on-chain**, consistent with the treasury consolidation principles established under **TFIP-34**.
***
## Rationale
This action aligns directly with the DAO-approved strategic direction under **TFIP-37** and enables execution using **existing DAO-owned resources**, without requiring new minting, inflationary actions, or premature external fundraising.
***
## Additional Context
The Foundation continues to work through legacy infrastructure and historical treasury arrangements. As part of that work, we will occasionally encounter discrepancies between historical labeling/assumptions and the on-chain reality. In this case, the goal remains unchanged, but the exact address and asset inventory required correction prior to any binding on-chain execution.
***
## Next Governance Steps
As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:
**Tally Vote:** If Snapshot passes (or the amendment period concludes), the proposal proceeds to Tally for a binding on-chain vote.
# [TFIP-40] Timelock TRU allocation for rebranding and treasury recapitalization
## Background
Following the approval and execution of **TFIP-34 – Foundation Update: Wallet Recovery and Treasury Consolidation**, the Foundation consolidated DAO-controlled assets under a unified operational structure.
Separately, under **TFIP-37 – Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization**, the DAO approved the strategic direction for TrueFi’s rebranding and broader treasury recapitalization initiative.
TFIP-40 was introduced as an extension to authorize the allocation of assets held in a “timelock/public treasury” address to support execution of TFIP-37.
***
## Correction Notice (Form, not Substance)
During the preparation of the on-chain **Tally** execution, we identified a **parameter error** in TFIP-40:
* TFIP-40 referenced the **Timelock smart contract** address:
`0x5Fe2F5F2Cc97887746C5cB44386A94061F35DcC4`
* However, the intended target for this action is the **Public Treasury Timelock wallet**:
`0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07`
Because these are **different addresses**, the asset inventory is also different. This update is therefore a **correction of form (address + assets)**, not of purpose: the DAO intent remains to allocate relevant public-treasury assets to support the execution of TFIP-37.
***
## Updated Assets (Public Treasury Timelock)
The balances held at `0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07` intended to be allocated under this revised proposal are:
* **6,151.0529 USDC**
* **435,344.2321 TRU**
***
## Proposal
This proposal seeks DAO authorization to:
1. Recognize `0x4f4AC7a7032A14243aEbDa98Ee04a5D7Fe293d07` as the **correct Public Treasury Timelock address** referenced in the proposal.
2. Allocate the assets held in this wallet (**6,151.0529 USDC and 435,344.2321 TRU**) to support the execution of **TrueFi Rebranding and Treasury Recapitalization**, as outlined in **TFIP-37**.
3. Transfer these assets to the Foundation-managed operational multisignature wallet: **New Treasury -** `0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b`
4. Ensure the assets remain **fully visible and traceable on-chain**, consistent with the treasury consolidation principles established under **TFIP-34**.
***
## Rationale
This action aligns directly with the DAO-approved strategic direction under **TFIP-37** and enables execution using **existing DAO-owned resources**, without requiring new minting, inflationary actions, or premature external fundraising.
***
## Additional Context
The Foundation continues to work through legacy infrastructure and historical treasury arrangements. As part of that work, we will occasionally encounter discrepancies between historical labeling/assumptions and the on-chain reality. In this case, the goal remains unchanged, but the exact address and asset inventory required correction prior to any binding on-chain execution.
***
## Next Governance Steps
As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:
**Tally Vote:**
If Snapshot passes (or the amendment period concludes), the proposal proceeds to Tally for a binding on-chain vote.
# [TFIP-39]: Legacy Blockwater BUSD preservation and conversion proposal
## Summary (TL;DR)
This proposal seeks approval to preserve lender recovery value by authorizing the conversion of **645,405.81 BUSD** currently held in the **Blockwater Loan smart contract** into USDC or USDT, in light of the announced deprecation of BUSD.
The conversion is expected to incur an approximate **1% execution cost**, resulting in an estimated **638,951.76 USDC/USDT**, and is intended solely to\*\* mitigate the risk of BUSD becoming illiquid or valueless over time\*\*.
## Background
Following the historical default of Blockwater in the legacy tfBUSD pool, a partial repayment equivalent to approximately 19% of outstanding principal was repaid and remains held today in the[ Blockwater Loan smart contract](https://etherscan.io/address/0x4a66a867f52df4ed1d8580a1c383b2dd036a3c47), denominated in BUSD.
These assets represent one of the remaining recovery paths available to lenders affected by the Blockwater default. They are not held in SAFU and are not part of the active DAO treasury, but they remain economically relevant to the resolution of legacy defaults.
## BUSD Deprecation Risk
Paxos, the issuer of BUSD, has [publicly announced](https://www.paxos.com/newsroom/paxos-will-halt-minting-new-busd-tokens) the halt of minting new BUSD tokens and the progressive wind-down of the asset. While BUSD remains usable today, it is broadly understood that:
* BUSD liquidity is expected to decline over time;
* long-term usability and market support are uncertain;
* the probability of BUSD becoming illiquid or effectively valueless increases if no action is taken.
In this context, continuing to hold recovery assets denominated in BUSD exposes lenders to asymmetric downside risk with no compensating upside.
## Problem Statement
Absent action by governance:
* lenders risk recovering 645,405.81 BUSD that may eventually have negligible or zero value;
* the DAO would knowingly allow a recoverable legacy asset to deteriorate;
* the opportunity to preserve meaningful recovery value may be lost permanently.
This proposal does not attempt to modify historical defaults, restructure liabilities, or accelerate distributions. Its sole purpose is asset preservation.
## Proposed Action
The DAO is asked to approve the following high-level mandate:
* Authorize the conversion of 645,405.81 BUSD currently held in the Blockwater Loan smart contract into USDC or USDT.
* Accept an estimated ~1% execution cost, resulting in approximately 638,951.76 USDC/USDT.
* Ensure that the converted stablecoins remain designated for Blockwater-related lender recoveries.
## **Implementation Steps**
### **Step 1 – SAFU Redemption**
As a first step, the DAO will execute a **redeem operation on the SAFU smart contract**, which will result in the following:
* **Transfer of BUSD** from the Blockwater Loan smart contract into the SAFU smart contract.
* **Burning of the corresponding LOAN tokens** held by SAFU.
While the DAO’s initial preference was to preserve LOAN tokens, this outcome is **technically unavoidable** given the design of the legacy contracts. The resulting on-chain transaction will serve as an explicit and verifiable record that the LOAN tokens were burned **solely in furtherance of the objectives of TFIP-39**, namely asset preservation for lenders.
### **Step 2 – SAFU Rescue to Treasury**
Following the **SAFU smart contract upgrade approved under TFIP-38**, the DAO will invoke the newly introduced `rescue` function to:
* transfer the recovered **BUSD from the SAFU smart contract** to the **TrueFi Foundation New Treasury** address.
**Disclaimer:**
At the time of publishing this proposal, **TFIP-38 has not yet been voted on or executed**. As a result, the `rescue` function may not be available during Tally simulation, and simulation errors may occur.
Execution of TFIP-39 is therefore **explicitly conditional** on:
* TFIP-38 passing governance vote; and
* TFIP-38 being successfully executed on-chain.
If TFIP-38 is not approved and executed, the transactions described in this proposal **will not be executed** and would otherwise revert.
### **Step 3 – BUSD Conversion**
Once the BUSD is held in the **TrueFi Foundation New Treasury**, the DAO will proceed with:
* the conversion of **645,405.81 BUSD** into **USDC or USDT**;
* accepting an estimated execution cost of approximately **1%**;
* ensuring that the resulting **USDC/USDT is not used for any other purpose**, and remains designated exclusively for Blockwater-related lender recoveries.
### **Execution Authority**
All on-chain actions described above will be executed through the DAO’s standard governance execution mechanisms, including **Timelock execution via Tally**, in accordance with established governance procedures.
## Governance Intent
The intent of this proposal is to obtain community approval for the objective and outcome, namely:
* extracting the BUSD recovery assets from the Blockwater Loan smart contract;
* converting them into USDC or USDT to preserve value;
* preserving all existing LOAN and DEF token balances, without triggering burns or lifecycle finalization mechanics.
## Conclusion
TFIP-39 is a narrowly scoped, risk-mitigating proposal intended to prevent the avoidable impairment of lender recovery assets. By authorizing the conversion of BUSD into a more durable stablecoin, the DAO acts prudently in the face of known asset deprecation risk while preserving full flexibility for future legacy resolutions.
## Next Governance Steps
As the proposals does not fall under the simplified governance exemptions, the proposal will require the following steps:
1. Tally Vote: Otherwise, the proposal will be posted to Tally for the final vote.
# [TFIP-38.3]: Legacy SAFU governance unlock and treasury reallocation Passed
## Summary (TL;DR)
This proposal addresses a governance and contract-level limitation affecting the legacy SAFU smart contract, which currently holds a significant amount of slashed TRU tokens originating from historical defaults in the tfBUSD TrueFi DAO pool.
TFIP-38 proposes a narrowly scoped, technical action to:
Upgrade the SAFU smart contract to include a rescueToken function controlled by the protocol Timelock; and
Transfer the TRU tokens currently held by SAFU to the TrueFi Foundation Treasury via the Timelock.
This proposal does not seek to resolve or finalize the handling of legacy defaulted loans, recovered assets, or outstanding on-chain artifacts. Those topics are documented for transparency and will be addressed through future governance discussions.
## Background: Legacy SAFU and tfBUSD Defaults
In 2022, two borrowers in the tfBUSD TrueFi DAO pool — Blockwater Technologies and New World Holdings / Invictus Capital — defaulted on their loans.
Following these defaults:
The SAFU mechanism was triggered correctly on-chain.
TRU tokens were slashed from stakers and transferred to the SAFU contract.
Defaulted LOAN tokens and Deficiency Claim (DEF) tokens were minted according to the protocol design.
The tfBUSD pool was later closed and is no longer active.
At the same time, Archblock assumed the role of Special Servicing Agent (SSA) and has since coordinated recovery efforts through a combination of legal action and negotiated settlements, both on-chain and off-chain.
As a result, the protocol today reflects a mismatch between historical economic handling and current on-chain state, particularly with respect to assets held in the SAFU contract.
## Role of Archblock as Special Servicing Agent
Following these defaults, Archblock assumed responsibility as Special Servicing Agent (SSA) for the tfBUSD pool, acting on behalf of lenders to recover value through off-chain means.
This role and mandate were communicated transparently to the community.
**Official tfBUSD Default Update**
Archblock publicly confirmed:
Both Blockwater and Invictus had defaulted
Archblock was leading recovery efforts via legal and negotiated channels
Recoveries would be pursued and distributed for the benefit of tfBUSD lenders
**Forum reference:**
[https://forum.truefi.io/t/archblock-special-servicing-update/1481](https://forum.truefi.io/t/archblock-special-servicing-update/1481) [https://forum.truefi.io/t/proposal-for-ssa-advisory-and-legal-services-invoicing/1488](https://forum.truefi.io/t/proposal-for-ssa-advisory-and-legal-services-invoicing/1488)
Archblock has since:
Initiated bankruptcy and criminal proceedings (Blockwater)
Coordinated liquidation processes (Invictus)
Tried to recover and distribut funds on-chain but outside SAFU default handling
Continued to communicate progress to the community
Critically, no SAFU funds were used on-chain to make the pool whole, and no on-chain buyback or burn of DEF tokens was executed.
## Recovered BUSD in the Blockwater Loan Contract
After the Blockwater loan defaulted, a portion of the borrowed assets was repaid directly into the Blockwater loan smart contract prior to the completion of the SAFU handling process.
As of today, approximately 645,000 BUSD remains held within the Blockwater loan contract:
[https://etherscan.io/address/0x4a66a867f52df4ed1d8580a1c383b2dd036a3c47](https://etherscan.io/address/0x4a66a867f52df4ed1d8580a1c383b2dd036a3c47)
These funds represent on-chain repayments associated with a legacy defaulted loan. Due to the historical handling of recoveries both on-chain and off-chain, and the subsequent closure of the tfBUSD pool, these funds were never reconciled through the standard SAFU default-resolution flow.
TFIP-38 does not propose the immediate distribution, utilization, or reallocation of these BUSD funds.
## Current State
As of today:
The tfBUSD pool is inactive and cannot be used for further lender repayments.
SAFU holds approximately 45.28 million TRU tokens that were slashed during the legacy defaults.
SAFU also holds or is associated with other legacy on-chain artifacts (LOAN tokens, DEF tokens, and recovered assets), which are not addressed by this proposal.
The SAFU contract does not currently include a generic mechanism for governance-controlled token recovery.
This lack of flexibility prevents the DAO from exercising clear governance control over assets held within SAFU.
## Purpose of This Proposal
The purpose of TFIP-38 is not to resolve legacy defaults or distribute recovered funds.
Instead, its sole objective is to:
restore governance control over assets held by SAFU, starting with TRU tokens; and
enable future, deliberate, and community-driven decisions regarding the remaining legacy artifacts.
This is achieved by introducing a standard rescueToken function under Timelock control.
## Why a Limited-Scope Proposal
Legacy default handling involves:
partially repaid loans,
off-chain recoveries,
inactive pools, and
unresolved on-chain artifacts.
Resolving these elements requires careful analysis, coordination, and community input. Attempting to bundle such decisions into a single proposal would introduce unnecessary complexity and risk.
TFIP-38 therefore deliberately limits its scope to enabling governance flexibility, without prejudging future outcomes.
## Proposal
TFIP-38 proposes the following actions:
**1. Upgrade the SAFU Smart Contract**
The SAFU smart contract will be upgraded to include a rescueToken function, callable exclusively by the protocol Timelock.
This function enables governance-controlled recovery of ERC-20 tokens held by the SAFU contract.
**2. Transfer TRU Tokens from SAFU to the TrueFi Foundation Treasury**
Following the upgrade, all TRU tokens currently held by SAFU — approximately 45,284,523 TRU — will be transferred to the TrueFi Foundation Treasury via the Timelock and used as treasury reserve fund for the Rebrand.
These tokens will thereafter be managed under standard DAO governance processes.
## Explicit Non-Goals of This Proposal
TFIP-38 does not:
burn DEF tokens;
burn LOAN tokens;
distribute or reallocate recovered BUSD;
resolve legacy lender claims; or
determine the final treatment of recovered assets.
All such topics will be addressed in future governance proposals following additional analysis and community discussion.
**Impact**
Restores governance control over slashed TRU tokens.
Removes a critical operational limitation from the SAFU contract.
Improves transparency and auditability.
Establishes a clean foundation for future, well-scoped proposals addressing legacy defaults.
## Conclusion
TFIP-38 is a narrowly scoped governance-enablement proposal.
It does not rewrite history, alter lender outcomes, or resolve legacy defaults. Instead, it unlocks the DAO’s ability to responsibly manage assets held within SAFU and prepares the protocol for future decisions regarding legacy default handling.
## Next Governance Steps
As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:
Tally Vote: If Snapshot passes (or the amendment period concludes), the proposal proceeds to Tally for a binding on-chain vote.
# [TFIP-37.3]: Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization rep
Due to the holiday period, community participation in this proposal was limited.
Accordingly, we have decided to resubmit TFIP-37.3 under the same terms as the original proposal.
# Summary
This proposal requests community approval to rebrand the TrueFi project and to mint the remaining TRU token supply to fund this transition and future growth.
Over the past year, the Board and Foundation have worked to clean up legacy issues, stabilize operations, and build new products. However, the TrueFi brand continues to carry reputational baggage from earlier eras that no longer reflect the team, the technology, or the direction of the project.
A rebrand allows the protocol to retain its technology (including Cyan, the TrueFi vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP system) while cleanly separating from the legacy identity that has become a significant headwind to growth and business development.
# Background
TrueFi has gone through substantial internal transformation in the last 12 months. The current contributors have:
Streamlined governance and operations Consolidated technical assets Integrated Cyan Developed a stablecoin and CDP architecture Improved financial discipline Invested in modernizing the infrastructure
These improvements position the project for renewed growth. However, despite this progress, the brand itself remains one of the largest obstacles.
# The Problem: The TrueFi Brand No Longer Represents the Project
The reputation TrueFi accumulated from 2020–2023 (governance disputes, misaligned incentives, unresolved forum discussions, contributor turnover, and loan disputes from teams long gone) continues to resurface despite the current team’s clean track record.
This manifests in several ways: BD conversations that begin with legacy concerns unrelated to today’s contributors Questions on socials about events that occurred years ago under prior teams Negative associations that overshadow new products and integrations Confusion about which groups or technologies are still part of the project Community members repeatedly asking why the protocol has not rebranded The brand has become a structural drag on credibility, growth, hiring, partnerships, and even basic communications.
The technology is strong. The team is aligned. The opportunity is real. **The brand is a bottleneck.** A clean slate solves this.
# Rationale for Rebranding
**The Community Has Actively Requested a Rebrand**
Multiple members of the Telegram community have raised the idea of rebranding, recognizing that the legacy issues are not going away and continue to distract from the work actually being built today. This proposal formalizes that discussion and acknowledges the community’s input.
**The Brand Carries Reputational Baggage That No Longer Reflects Reality**
Despite the current team’s work to fix the past, nearly all external conversations still surface history that:
The current contributors did not create The current Board has already resolved or addressed The technology stack no longer reflects
This creates unnecessary friction for BD, partnerships, liquidity collaborators, and ecosystem conversations.
A Unified Brand Enables the Project to Present Its Technology as a Cohesive System We now operate: Cyan (NFT-backed lending) TrueFi vault infrastructure A stablecoin and CDP system Off-chain borrower evaluation and credit primitives
These should sit under one coherent brand, not fragmented legacy naming.
**The Rebrand Allows Us to Move Forward Without Dragging the Past Along**
The rebrand is not about erasing history (the TrueFi forum will remain, but separately for legacy discussions) but about building a project that can grow without constantly answering for events unrelated to the present.
This creates: A clear identity A cleaner narrative A more credible BD posture A healthier environment for tokenholders A fresh foundation for everything we build next
# The Rebrand Requires Resources: Treasury Recapitalization
Executing a proper rebrand and transition (including audits, documentation, business development, integrations, design work, communications, and ongoing operational continuity) requires adequate funding. Minting the remaining TRU supply does not change the maximum token supply, was always contemplated in the original token design, and provides the balance-sheet capital necessary to execute this transition responsibly. This recapitalization ensures that the project can move forward without compromise and with the resources needed to complete the rebrand effectively..
# Scope of This Proposal
**1. Approve a Full Rebrand of the Protocol** This includes: Developing a new project name and identity Updating documentation, branding, and public interfaces Migrating active governance, engineering, and communications to the new brand Retaining the TrueFi forum for historical and claims-related matters
**2. Mint the Remaining TRU Supply Into the Treasury** Funds will support: Rebrand execution Operational continuity BD and liquidity partner engagement Engineering, audits, and integrations Communications and documentation updates Additional liquidity for Cyan, lending vaults, stablecoin, and CDP infrastructure
**3. Establish the Operational Framework for the Brand Transition** The transition will include coordinating contributors around a unified rebrand plan, updating all public documentation and technical materials to reflect the new identity, preparing communication packages for partners and ecosystem participants, and ensuring that Cyan, the vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP systems are properly represented under the new brand.
This framework also includes planning the sequence of interface updates, consolidating governance and communication channels, and managing the rollout of the new brand across all user- and developer-facing surfaces. This proposal focuses exclusively on the brand transition and does not authorize any token migration or reconstitution, which would require separate governance action if pursued.
**4. Resume and Complete Critical Technical Workstreams** As part of the brand transition and in preparation for renewed growth, several technical initiatives that were previously paused due to funding and prioritization constraints will be resumed and completed.
This includes restarting the external audit process for Elara V1, which had been paused during earlier stages of the project. Completing this audit is a prerequisite for deploying Elara as a production-grade system and for engaging with partners that require formally reviewed smart contract infrastructure. In parallel, the CDP architecture will undergo its own independent audit to ensure the security, correctness, and robustness of the system before broader usage.
In addition, work on KYC and AML integrations (which had also been paused) will be resumed. These integrations are necessary to support compliant counterparties, enable broader participation in the protocol’s products, and ensure the infrastructure can support institutional and regulated use cases as adoption increases.
Finally, additional capital will be allocated to support early-stage liquidity requirements across the protocol’s products. This includes ensuring sufficient liquidity is available to support initial usage, testing, and partner onboarding, without relying on ad hoc or reactive measures.
Together, these workstreams ensure that the protocol’s technical foundations, compliance capabilities, and liquidity posture are aligned with the expectations of a modern, growth-oriented on-chain financial platform.
**Implementation Timeline (3–5 Weeks)**
**Week 0–1:** Mint remaining TRU into the treasury Begin final brand development, naming, and design Prepare updated documentation and transition plan
**Week 2–3:** Announce new brand identity Begin migration of public-facing interfaces, documentation, and communication channels
**Week 3–5:** Complete migration to new brand Provide transparency report on treasury usage and remaining runway Publish updated BD, partner, and technical documentation under new brand
# Next Governance Steps
As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:
The proposal will be posted to Tally for the final vote minting and sending TRUat the execution of the proposal to TrueFi Foundation New Treasury wallet.
# Conclusion
TFIP-37 initiates a straightforward but essential step: separating the future of the protocol from the legacy of the TrueFi brand.
This allows the community to focus on what has actually been built (modern credit primitives, NFT-backed lending, stablecoin/CDP infrastructure, and a unified technology stack) rather than continuously answering for a past that no longer reflects the team, the products, or the direction of the project.
The combination of a clean brand and a properly funded treasury gives the protocol the best possible foundation for growth.
# [TFIP-36.2]: Proposal to Update Signer on TrueFi Multisig Wallets Reposted
Due to the holiday period, community participation in this proposal was limited.
Accordingly, we have decided to resubmit TFIP-36.2 under the same terms as the original proposal.
# Summary
This proposal seeks to update one of the signers on three TrueFi multisig wallets:
* Foundation Payroll multisig - 0xC2636A948a730D4578E07c36aFc6f8A8Fef59Df1
* Plume multisig - 0xCd130E5833a7A30BcADBDB57DFc7aC88d2F8b572
* New Treasury multisig - 0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b for operational continuity and to reflect the current availability of participants. Specifically, we propose replacing the current signer Vivek at address 0x622a48841fC326C4C60d3008bACc1a13011Af624 with Goblin at a new address 0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2.
# Motivation
TrueFi DAO relies on a multisig for executing DAO-approved transactions and maintaining control over treasury assets. To ensure the multisig continues to function securely and efficiently, it’s important to keep signer addresses up to date. This change ensures that all participants remain active and reachable at their signing address.
# Specification
Replace the existing signer on the TrueFi DAO Treasury Gnosis Safe, TrueFi Foundation Payroll Gnosis Safe, and TrueFi DAO Plume Gnosis Safe:
Remove: Vivek – 0x622a48841fC326C4C60d3008bACc1a13011Af624, 0xA8a9c3CB60dc5EE59464883Af56Ae8511B13C9F6
Add: Goblin – 0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2
There will be no change to the total number of signers or the signing threshold.
# Next Steps
1. Tally vote: The proposal will be posted on Tally for the final vote.
2. To memorialize the proposal on Tally, 1 TRU will be transferred from Timelock contract to the TrueFi Foundation New Treasury.
3. The replacement will be handled on the SAFE level.
# TFIP-37.2: Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization rep
Due to the holiday period, community participation in this proposal was limited.
Accordingly, we have decided to resubmit TFIP-37.2 under the same terms as the original proposal.
# Summary
This proposal requests community approval to rebrand the TrueFi project and to mint the remaining TRU token supply to fund this transition and future growth.
Over the past year, the Board and Foundation have worked to clean up legacy issues, stabilize operations, and build new products. However, the TrueFi brand continues to carry reputational baggage from earlier eras that no longer reflect the team, the technology, or the direction of the project.
A rebrand allows the protocol to retain its technology (including Cyan, the TrueFi vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP system) while cleanly separating from the legacy identity that has become a significant headwind to growth and business development.
# Background
TrueFi has gone through substantial internal transformation in the last 12 months. The current contributors have:
Streamlined governance and operations Consolidated technical assets Integrated Cyan Developed a stablecoin and CDP architecture Improved financial discipline Invested in modernizing the infrastructure
These improvements position the project for renewed growth. However, despite this progress, the brand itself remains one of the largest obstacles.
# The Problem: The TrueFi Brand No Longer Represents the Project
The reputation TrueFi accumulated from 2020–2023 (governance disputes, misaligned incentives, unresolved forum discussions, contributor turnover, and loan disputes from teams long gone) continues to resurface despite the current team’s clean track record.
This manifests in several ways: BD conversations that begin with legacy concerns unrelated to today’s contributors Questions on socials about events that occurred years ago under prior teams Negative associations that overshadow new products and integrations Confusion about which groups or technologies are still part of the project Community members repeatedly asking why the protocol has not rebranded The brand has become a structural drag on credibility, growth, hiring, partnerships, and even basic communications.
The technology is strong. The team is aligned. The opportunity is real. **The brand is a bottleneck.** A clean slate solves this.
# Rationale for Rebranding
**The Community Has Actively Requested a Rebrand**
Multiple members of the Telegram community have raised the idea of rebranding, recognizing that the legacy issues are not going away and continue to distract from the work actually being built today. This proposal formalizes that discussion and acknowledges the community’s input.
**The Brand Carries Reputational Baggage That No Longer Reflects Reality**
Despite the current team’s work to fix the past, nearly all external conversations still surface history that:
The current contributors did not create The current Board has already resolved or addressed The technology stack no longer reflects
This creates unnecessary friction for BD, partnerships, liquidity collaborators, and ecosystem conversations.
A Unified Brand Enables the Project to Present Its Technology as a Cohesive System We now operate: Cyan (NFT-backed lending) TrueFi vault infrastructure A stablecoin and CDP system Off-chain borrower evaluation and credit primitives
These should sit under one coherent brand, not fragmented legacy naming.
**The Rebrand Allows Us to Move Forward Without Dragging the Past Along**
The rebrand is not about erasing history (the TrueFi forum will remain, but separately for legacy discussions) but about building a project that can grow without constantly answering for events unrelated to the present.
This creates: A clear identity A cleaner narrative A more credible BD posture A healthier environment for tokenholders A fresh foundation for everything we build next
# The Rebrand Requires Resources: Treasury Recapitalization
Executing a proper rebrand and transition (including audits, documentation, business development, integrations, design work, communications, and ongoing operational continuity) requires adequate funding. Minting the remaining TRU supply does not change the maximum token supply, was always contemplated in the original token design, and provides the balance-sheet capital necessary to execute this transition responsibly. This recapitalization ensures that the project can move forward without compromise and with the resources needed to complete the rebrand effectively..
# Scope of This Proposal
**1. Approve a Full Rebrand of the Protocol** This includes: Developing a new project name and identity Updating documentation, branding, and public interfaces Migrating active governance, engineering, and communications to the new brand Retaining the TrueFi forum for historical and claims-related matters
**2. Mint the Remaining TRU Supply Into the Treasury** Funds will support: Rebrand execution Operational continuity BD and liquidity partner engagement Engineering, audits, and integrations Communications and documentation updates Additional liquidity for Cyan, lending vaults, stablecoin, and CDP infrastructure
**3. Establish the Operational Framework for the Brand Transition** The transition will include coordinating contributors around a unified rebrand plan, updating all public documentation and technical materials to reflect the new identity, preparing communication packages for partners and ecosystem participants, and ensuring that Cyan, the vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP systems are properly represented under the new brand.
This framework also includes planning the sequence of interface updates, consolidating governance and communication channels, and managing the rollout of the new brand across all user- and developer-facing surfaces. This proposal focuses exclusively on the brand transition and does not authorize any token migration or reconstitution, which would require separate governance action if pursued.
**4. Resume and Complete Critical Technical Workstreams** As part of the brand transition and in preparation for renewed growth, several technical initiatives that were previously paused due to funding and prioritization constraints will be resumed and completed.
This includes restarting the external audit process for Elara V1, which had been paused during earlier stages of the project. Completing this audit is a prerequisite for deploying Elara as a production-grade system and for engaging with partners that require formally reviewed smart contract infrastructure. In parallel, the CDP architecture will undergo its own independent audit to ensure the security, correctness, and robustness of the system before broader usage.
In addition, work on KYC and AML integrations (which had also been paused) will be resumed. These integrations are necessary to support compliant counterparties, enable broader participation in the protocol’s products, and ensure the infrastructure can support institutional and regulated use cases as adoption increases.
Finally, additional capital will be allocated to support early-stage liquidity requirements across the protocol’s products. This includes ensuring sufficient liquidity is available to support initial usage, testing, and partner onboarding, without relying on ad hoc or reactive measures.
Together, these workstreams ensure that the protocol’s technical foundations, compliance capabilities, and liquidity posture are aligned with the expectations of a modern, growth-oriented on-chain financial platform.
**Implementation Timeline (3–5 Weeks)**
**Week 0–1:** Mint remaining TRU into the treasury Begin final brand development, naming, and design Prepare updated documentation and transition plan
**Week 2–3:** Announce new brand identity Begin migration of public-facing interfaces, documentation, and communication channels
**Week 3–5:** Complete migration to new brand Provide transparency report on treasury usage and remaining runway Publish updated BD, partner, and technical documentation under new brand
# Next Governance Steps
As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:
The proposal will be posted to Tally for the final vote minting and sending TRUat the execution of the proposal to TrueFi Foundation New Treasury wallet.
# Conclusion
TFIP-37 initiates a straightforward but essential step: separating the future of the protocol from the legacy of the TrueFi brand.
This allows the community to focus on what has actually been built (modern credit primitives, NFT-backed lending, stablecoin/CDP infrastructure, and a unified technology stack) rather than continuously answering for a past that no longer reflects the team, the products, or the direction of the project.
The combination of a clean brand and a properly funded treasury gives the protocol the best possible foundation for growth.
# TFIP-36.1: Proposal to Update Signer on TrueFi Multisig Wallets Reposted
Due to the holiday period, community participation in this proposal was limited.
Accordingly, we have decided to resubmit TFIP-36.1 under the same terms as the original proposal.
# Summary
This proposal seeks to update one of the signers on three TrueFi multisig wallets:
* Foundation Payroll multisig - 0xC2636A948a730D4578E07c36aFc6f8A8Fef59Df1
* Plume multisig - 0xCd130E5833a7A30BcADBDB57DFc7aC88d2F8b572
* New Treasury multisig - 0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b for operational continuity and to reflect the current availability of participants. Specifically, we propose replacing the current signer Vivek at address 0x622a48841fC326C4C60d3008bACc1a13011Af624 with Goblin at a new address 0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2.
# Motivation
TrueFi DAO relies on a multisig for executing DAO-approved transactions and maintaining control over treasury assets. To ensure the multisig continues to function securely and efficiently, it’s important to keep signer addresses up to date. This change ensures that all participants remain active and reachable at their signing address.
# Specification
Replace the existing signer on the TrueFi DAO Treasury Gnosis Safe, TrueFi Foundation Payroll Gnosis Safe, and TrueFi DAO Plume Gnosis Safe:
Remove: Vivek – 0x622a48841fC326C4C60d3008bACc1a13011Af624, 0xA8a9c3CB60dc5EE59464883Af56Ae8511B13C9F6
Add: Goblin – 0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2
There will be no change to the total number of signers or the signing threshold.
# Next Steps
1. Tally vote: The proposal will be posted on Tally for the final vote.
2. To memorialize the proposal on Tally, 1 TRU will be transferred from Timelock contract to the TrueFi Foundation New Treasury.
3. The replacement will be handled on the SAFE level.
# TFIP-37.1: Authorization of TrueFi Rebrand and Treasury Recapitalization
Due to the holiday period, community participation in this proposal was limited.
Additionally, we identified that the TrueFi DAO Snapshot space was misconfigured and did not enforce a quorum requirement. As a result, TFIP-37 appears as passed on Snapshot; however, from a governance perspective, it did not meet the 5% quorum requirement established under TFIP-16.
We will address this configuration issue promptly and implement the 5% staked TRU quorum rule as intended.
Accordingly, we have decided to resubmit TFIP-37.1 under the same terms as the original proposal.
# Summary
This proposal requests community approval to rebrand the TrueFi project and to mint the remaining TRU token supply to fund this transition and future growth.
Over the past year, the Board and Foundation have worked to clean up legacy issues, stabilize operations, and build new products. However, the TrueFi brand continues to carry reputational baggage from earlier eras that no longer reflect the team, the technology, or the direction of the project.
A rebrand allows the protocol to retain its technology (including Cyan, the TrueFi vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP system) while cleanly separating from the legacy identity that has become a significant headwind to growth and business development.
# Background
TrueFi has gone through substantial internal transformation in the last 12 months. The current contributors have:
Streamlined governance and operations
Consolidated technical assets
Integrated Cyan
Developed a stablecoin and CDP architecture
Improved financial discipline
Invested in modernizing the infrastructure
These improvements position the project for renewed growth. However, despite this progress, the brand itself remains one of the largest obstacles.
# The Problem: The TrueFi Brand No Longer Represents the Project
The reputation TrueFi accumulated from 2020–2023 (governance disputes, misaligned incentives, unresolved forum discussions, contributor turnover, and loan disputes from teams long gone) continues to resurface despite the current team’s clean track record.
This manifests in several ways:
BD conversations that begin with legacy concerns unrelated to today’s contributors
Questions on socials about events that occurred years ago under prior teams
Negative associations that overshadow new products and integrations
Confusion about which groups or technologies are still part of the project
Community members repeatedly asking why the protocol has not rebranded
The brand has become a structural drag on credibility, growth, hiring, partnerships, and even basic communications.
The technology is strong.
The team is aligned.
The opportunity is real.
**The brand is a bottleneck.**
A clean slate solves this.
# Rationale for Rebranding
**The Community Has Actively Requested a Rebrand**
Multiple members of the Telegram community have raised the idea of rebranding, recognizing that the legacy issues are not going away and continue to distract from the work actually being built today.
This proposal formalizes that discussion and acknowledges the community’s input.
**The Brand Carries Reputational Baggage That No Longer Reflects Reality**
Despite the current team’s work to fix the past, nearly all external conversations still surface history that:
The current contributors did not create
The current Board has already resolved or addressed
The technology stack no longer reflects
This creates unnecessary friction for BD, partnerships, liquidity collaborators, and ecosystem conversations.
A Unified Brand Enables the Project to Present Its Technology as a Cohesive System
We now operate:
Cyan (NFT-backed lending)
TrueFi vault infrastructure
A stablecoin and CDP system
Off-chain borrower evaluation and credit primitives
These should sit under one coherent brand, not fragmented legacy naming.
**The Rebrand Allows Us to Move Forward Without Dragging the Past Along**
The rebrand is not about erasing history (the TrueFi forum will remain, but separately for legacy discussions) but about building a project that can grow without constantly answering for events unrelated to the present.
This creates:
A clear identity
A cleaner narrative
A more credible BD posture
A healthier environment for tokenholders
A fresh foundation for everything we build next
# The Rebrand Requires Resources: Treasury Recapitalization
Executing a proper rebrand and transition (including audits, documentation, business development, integrations, design work, communications, and ongoing operational continuity) requires adequate funding. Minting the remaining TRU supply does not change the maximum token supply, was always contemplated in the original token design, and provides the balance-sheet capital necessary to execute this transition responsibly. This recapitalization ensures that the project can move forward without compromise and with the resources needed to complete the rebrand effectively..
# Scope of This Proposal
**1. Approve a Full Rebrand of the Protocol**
This includes:
Developing a new project name and identity
Updating documentation, branding, and public interfaces
Migrating active governance, engineering, and communications to the new brand
Retaining the TrueFi forum for historical and claims-related matters
**2. Mint the Remaining TRU Supply Into the Treasury**
Funds will support:
Rebrand execution
Operational continuity
BD and liquidity partner engagement
Engineering, audits, and integrations
Communications and documentation updates
Additional liquidity for Cyan, lending vaults, stablecoin, and CDP infrastructure
**3. Establish the Operational Framework for the Brand Transition**
The transition will include coordinating contributors around a unified rebrand plan, updating all public documentation and technical materials to reflect the new identity, preparing communication packages for partners and ecosystem participants, and ensuring that Cyan, the vault architecture, and the stablecoin/CDP systems are properly represented under the new brand.
This framework also includes planning the sequence of interface updates, consolidating governance and communication channels, and managing the rollout of the new brand across all user- and developer-facing surfaces. This proposal focuses exclusively on the brand transition and does not authorize any token migration or reconstitution, which would require separate governance action if pursued.
**4. Resume and Complete Critical Technical Workstreams**
As part of the brand transition and in preparation for renewed growth, several technical initiatives that were previously paused due to funding and prioritization constraints will be resumed and completed.
This includes restarting the external audit process for Elara V1, which had been paused during earlier stages of the project. Completing this audit is a prerequisite for deploying Elara as a production-grade system and for engaging with partners that require formally reviewed smart contract infrastructure. In parallel, the CDP architecture will undergo its own independent audit to ensure the security, correctness, and robustness of the system before broader usage.
In addition, work on KYC and AML integrations (which had also been paused) will be resumed. These integrations are necessary to support compliant counterparties, enable broader participation in the protocol’s products, and ensure the infrastructure can support institutional and regulated use cases as adoption increases.
Finally, additional capital will be allocated to support early-stage liquidity requirements across the protocol’s products. This includes ensuring sufficient liquidity is available to support initial usage, testing, and partner onboarding, without relying on ad hoc or reactive measures.
Together, these workstreams ensure that the protocol’s technical foundations, compliance capabilities, and liquidity posture are aligned with the expectations of a modern, growth-oriented on-chain financial platform.
**Implementation Timeline (3–5 Weeks)**
**Week 0–1:**
Mint remaining TRU into the treasury
Begin final brand development, naming, and design
Prepare updated documentation and transition plan
**Week 2–3:**
Announce new brand identity
Begin migration of public-facing interfaces, documentation, and communication channels
**Week 3–5:**
Complete migration to new brand
Provide transparency report on treasury usage and remaining runway
Publish updated BD, partner, and technical documentation under new brand
# Next Governance Steps
As this proposal does not fall under simplified governance exemptions, it must follow the full governance process:
**Forum Posting (72 hours):**
Community discussion and feedback period.
**Snapshot Vote (48 hours):**
Options:
OK to vote on Tally
Not OK to vote on Tally
Abstain
A minimum of 5% of staked TRU is required for quorum.
**Amendment Period (72 hours):**
If quorum is met but “Not OK to vote on Tally” receives the majority, the proposal enters a 72-hour amendment and discussion window before moving forward.
**Tally Vote:**
If Snapshot passes (or the amendment period concludes), the proposal proceeds to Tally for a binding on-chain vote.
# Conclusion
TFIP-37 initiates a straightforward but essential step: separating the future of the protocol from the legacy of the TrueFi brand.
This allows the community to focus on what has actually been built (modern credit primitives, NFT-backed lending, stablecoin/CDP infrastructure, and a unified technology stack) rather than continuously answering for a past that no longer reflects the team, the products, or the direction of the project.
The combination of a clean brand and a properly funded treasury gives the protocol the best possible foundation for growth.
# TFIP-36: Proposal to Update Signer on TrueFi Multisig Wallets
# Summary
This proposal seeks to update one of the signers on three TrueFi multisig wallets:
* Foundation Payroll multisig - 0xC2636A948a730D4578E07c36aFc6f8A8Fef59Df1
* Plume multisig - 0xCd130E5833a7A30BcADBDB57DFc7aC88d2F8b572
* New Treasury multisig - 0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b
for operational continuity and to reflect the current availability of participants. Specifically, we propose replacing the current signer Vivek at address 0x622a48841fC326C4C60d3008bACc1a13011Af624 with Goblin at a new address 0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2.
# Motivation
TrueFi DAO relies on a multisig for executing DAO-approved transactions and maintaining control over treasury assets. To ensure the multisig continues to function securely and efficiently, it’s important to keep signer addresses up to date. This change ensures that all participants remain active and reachable at their signing address.
# Specification
Replace the existing signer on the TrueFi DAO Treasury Gnosis Safe, TrueFi Foundation Payroll Gnosis Safe, and TrueFi DAO Plume Gnosis Safe:
Remove: Vivek – 0x622a48841fC326C4C60d3008bACc1a13011Af624, 0xA8a9c3CB60dc5EE59464883Af56Ae8511B13C9F6
Add: Goblin – 0x2ac4a7daD1eE2eACfA3E90dd6C69466CC66Df7B2
There will be no change to the total number of signers or the signing threshold.
# Next Steps
1. Tally vote: The proposal will be posted on Tally for the final vote. 
2. To memorialize the proposal on Tally, 1 TRU will be transferred from Timelock contract to the TrueFi Foundation New Treasury.
3. The replacement will be handled on the SAFE level.
# [TFIP-35.1] Budget Proposal Q1 2026 - Reworked
## Context
Dear TrueFi Community,
We would like to acknowledge that this proposal was previously posted but did not pass. Participation during that voting window was unusually low, and the feedback we did receive (primarily through Telegram and direct conversations) was broadly supportive. The lack of forum engagement and the timing over the holiday period likely contributed to the muted on-chain turnout. With that in mind, we are reposting this proposal with the same structure, added clarity, and a renewed commitment to open discussion on the forum.
Importantly, this is a **single-quarter budget** designed to maintain operational continuity while we activate the ecosystem’s product lines. By keeping the request to three months of funding, we ensure that the DAO retains flexibility and that the Foundation remains accountable to delivering measurable progress. We will return to the community in the next budget cycle with **granular reporting, updated KPIs, and clear evidence of execution** across Cyan, Elara, credit markets, and the revamped product stack
Over the past year, the Foundation has focused on stabilizing the TrueFi ecosystem, resolving legacy issues, and rebuilding the operational base inherited from the prior handover. When the protocol transitioned from Archblock, several technical and administrative components were incomplete or outdated. This included aging multisig structures, unavailable signers, unclear ownership of wallets, and a dependency on vendors who were no longer actively involved. These challenges slowed development and forced the team to spend time on cleanup rather than forward progress.
Despite these constraints, the Foundation has made meaningful progress. We have reduced total operating expenses by more than fifty percent, streamlined internal systems, completed a full reskin of the TrueFi front end, and implemented the Keyring KYC system that allows accredited lenders to access on-chain credit markets. For context, the Foundation’s average monthly spend in 2024, driven largely by external service providers, was over **$400,000**. In 2025, we reduced that figure to approximately **$150,000**, *even after accounting for one-time legal expenses and the development of stablecoin intellectual property*. This marks a decisive shift toward a leaner, more sustainable operating model. Most importantly, we have finished the internal restructuring required to move from a repair cycle into a growth cycle.
We are now ready to activate the products the ecosystem has built and begin generating visible traction. This budget proposal is designed to support the first phase of that growth. It focuses on measured, revenue positive deployment of capital across our three active product lines. Each initiative is designed to create productive, compounding capital for the protocol rather than discretionary spend or burn.
***
## Current Status & Budget Performance
Following the approval of the previous budget proposal ([TFIP-28](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/truefi/proposal/79805134100933429654464404197660116470858197125645356456400459034002613069198)), TrueFi DAO successfully funded six months of core operational activity throughout Q3 and Q4 2025. This included governance, strategic operations, product development, legal alignment, and community engagement.
All spending during this period has been transparently tracked and reported on a quarterly basis. The most recent updates, including departmental KPI summaries and expense breakdowns, are available to the public via the DAO’s Notion dashboard:
<img height="20" width="20" alt=":page_facing_up:" title=":page_facing_up:" src="https://emoji.discourse-cdn.com/twitter/page_facing_up.png?v=15" /> [TrueFi DAO Q3 2025 Report](https://truefi-protocol.notion.site/truefi-dao-q3-2025-report?pvs=74)
Despite market volatility, our contributors remained fiscally disciplined, navigating budget execution with efficiency. We prioritized critical milestones—such as onboarding new technical talent, completing the UI/UX reskin, transitioning IT infrastructure in-house, and progressing with Elara’s spin-out—while preserving capital for strategic flexibility.
As we approach the end of Q4 2025, and taking into account all forecasted expenditures for the remainder of the year, we anticipate the following treasury balance:
* **USDT Reserve**: 49,680 USDT
This remaining reserve reflects the careful management of DAO funds over the last six months and leaves us well-positioned to continue core operations into Q1 2026, pending approval of this proposal.
***
## Budget Request for Q1 2026
**Total requested budget: $489,850**
1. This proposal requests three **months of operating expenses** to support core functions such as **governance, operational costs, and community initiatives**. The budget accounts for the necessary funding to maintain operational stability and strategic development, with an estimated total of **$489,850** for the upcoming 3 months.
2. The proposed budget will take a **~30% earmark in TRU’s token price at the execution of the proposal** before being swapped into stablecoins. This is to account for price fluctuations before the TRU-to-USDC/USDT conversion.
3. Any excess funds will be [reported](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzIzN2MyOTItNTJkNi00ZWIxLWJkOTQtNGViY2U0NWZhZThhIiwidCI6ImZkZTUwOWIwLWY5NTgtNGYzMC1hYzA3LWFmMDA4ZWUwZjEzMyIsImMiOjl9) to the DAO at the end of the three months.
This figure includes ongoing operational costs as well as necessary back payments and strategic hires as detailed below. The budget structure remains consistent with previous frameworks to preserve clarity and predictability.
### 1. **Cyan (NFT Lending Platform)**
**Budget: $25,000 (Investment vehicle)**
Cyan is live today and already generating revenue. The product is strongly positioned within the NFT financing vertical and has seen organic usage with no external spend. The next step is to elevate Cyan’s visibility. We plan to run a targeted marketing campaign in partnership with key NFT communities, focused on driving borrow and lend activity with positive unit economics. For example, a user who finances a Pudgy Penguin through Cyan may receive a small amount of PENGU tokens only after initiating a loan. In all cases, the protocol earns revenue first and distributes incentives second. This ensures the marketing spend is net positive and directly tied to Cyan adoption.
### 2. **TrueFi Credit Vaults**
**Budget: $100,000 (Investment vehicle)**
The TrueFi reskin and Keyring KYC integration are currently code complete and in user acceptance testing. This positions us to relaunch institutional lending activity on the platform. To rebuild trust with external lenders, the Foundation proposes to deposit a modest amount of capital into select vaults and co-lend alongside institutional borrowers. This creates alignment, increases confidence in loan execution, and accelerates the return of lending volume. The yield earned flows back to the Foundation, making this a productive capital allocation rather than a cost.
### 3. **Elara CDP (Capital Efficient Yield Product)**
**Budget: $25,000 (Investment vehicle)**
The original Elara concept was a compliant Treasury-backed stablecoin. While the product was built and the IP remains fully owned by the DAO, the broader market environment made this design impractical without significant venture funding. Multiple projects in the same category faced similar challenges. Given this reality, we have pivoted Elara to a CDP model that supports capital-efficient sUSDe looping. This variant is much more aligned with current market demand and can generate meaningful returns with a modest liquidity base.
The CDP architecture is nearly complete. To support launch and testing, the Foundation requests a budget allocation that allows us to seed initial liquidity. This is not marketing spend or discretionary spend. It is productive capital that generates yield and contributes to the beginning of a permanent capital base for TrueFi owned liquidity.
### 4. Legal
**Budget: $7,500**
**Objectives:**
* Implement necessary legal modifications to TrueFi Foundation Ltd.
### 5. Finance, Treasury and Operations
**Budget: $40,000**
**Includes:**
* CFO (x1): $40,000
**Objectives:**
* Maintain core finance operations, including DAO-level bookkeeping, centralized payments, and monthly cost control reviews.
* Coordinate with legal team to assess how regulatory changes could impact fiscal procedures.
* Manage day-to-day operations, including onboarding and offboarding procedures, and oversee IT infrastructure at the operational level
* Support all other departments
**KPIs:**
* Zero late payments; Quarterly reporting published via DAO Report
* Quarterly financial report to community
* Monthly financial report to board
* Internal DAO guide created for future treasury strategy iterations.
### 6. **Strategy & Operations**
**Budget: $49,000**
**Includes:**
* Board Members (x4): $24,000
* Head of Strategy (x1): $25,000
**Objectives:**
* Sustain day-to-day operations management and enhance governance and contributor coordination.
* Provide governance oversight, strategic planning, and operational coordination.
* Execute strategic roadmap, aligning product, legal, and finance streams.
* Manage day-to-day operational continuity and reporting cadence.
**KPIs:**
* Governance cadence maintained (forum, Snapshot, Tally).
* Strategic input documented for each major initiative (legal, dev, finance).
### 7. **Research & Analysis**
**Budget: $37,500**
**Includes:**
* Head of Research (x1): $37,500
**Objectives:**
* Provide foundational market and competitive research.
* Support financial and treasury strategy with analysis and benchmarks.
### 8. Product & Development
**Budget: $156,250**
**Includes:**
* Head of Product (x1): $37,500
* Full-Stack Engineers (x2): $100,000
* Developer (x1): $18,750
### 9. IT Infrastructure
**Budget: $15,000**
**Objectives:**
* Fully internalized IT infrastructure (e.g., GitHub, Gitbook, Cloudflare, INFURA, Heroku).
### 10. Marketing & Community
**Budget: $34,600**
**Includes:**
* Marketer (x1): $25,000
* Community Moderator (x1): $9,600
**Objectives:**
* Amplify TrueFi and Elara and Cyan presence in web3 media, through long-form content, podcast appearances, and ecosystem collaborations.
* Drive forward community-led initiatives that increase ecosystem stickiness and TRU retention.
* Optimize budget allocation for industry events, targeting ROI-positive opportunities only.
**KPIs:**
* One thought leadership piece published each month.
* Two high-quality speaking engagements secured by year-end.
* Quarterly DAO report Town hall call
***
### Summary Budget Table
| **Cost Center** | **Q1 2026** |
| --------------------- | ------------ |
| Cyan Investment | $25,000 |
| TrueFi Credit Vaults | $100,000 |
| Elara CDP | $25,000 |
| Legal | $7,500 |
| Finance & Operations | $40,000 |
| Strategy & Operations | $49,000 |
| Research & Analysis | $37,500 |
| Product & Development | $156,250 |
| IT Infrastructure | $15,000 |
| Marketing & Community | $34,600 |
| **Total** | **$489,850** |
### **Operational Budget in USD:**
| **Position/Item** | **Annual** | **Q1 2026** |
| ------------------------- | ---------- | ------------ |
| Head of Product (x1) | $150,000 | $37,500 |
| Head of Research (x1) | $150,000 | $37,500 |
| Head of Strategy (x1) | $100,000 | $25,000 |
| Full Stack Engineers (x2) | $400,000 | $100,000 |
| Developer (x1) | $150,000 | $18,750 |
| IT Infrastructure | $45,000 | $15,000 |
| Marketer (x1) | $100,000 | $25,000 |
| Directors Fees (x5) | $96,000 | $24,000 |
| Community Moderator (x1) | $38,400 | $9,600 |
| Legal and Compliance | - | $7,500 |
| Finance & Operations | $160,000 | $40,000 |
| **Total Expenses** | | **$339,850** |
***
## Proposal Summary
| **Details** | **Q1 2026** |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------ |
| Projected Operational Cost | $489,850 |
| Reallocation from the TFIP-28 | -$49,680 |
| Budget Funding request | $440,170 |
| ~30% earmark | $132,051 |
| Total Funding request | $572,221 |
| TRU price | $0,014 |
| **TRU minting request** | **40,872,928 TRU** |
***
## **Goals Enabled by TFIP-35.1**
This budget proposal is designed to support a clear transition. The past year has been about stabilizing the protocol, cleaning up inherited systems, and finishing the work needed to unlock TrueFi’s product suite. The next phase is about growth, proof points, and showing the community that TrueFi is back in motion.
Each component of the proposed budget directly supports revenue generation, as well as product development. Cyan incentives are deployed only after revenue is earned. TrueFi co-lending is productive capital that yields returns. Elara liquidity is the foundation for a CDP product that has strong demand and favorable economics. None of these expenditures leave the ecosystem. They are investments into assets the DAO owns and controls.
Our goal is to demonstrate clear progress from Q4 through April of next year. By that point, we expect to show measurable traction across Cyan, TrueFi, and Elara, supported by a lean operational base and real on-chain activity.
Currently, the team is focused on
At that stage, the community can decide whether to expand the growth plan further. For now, we believe these targeted and disciplined allocations are the right scale for a sustainable restart.
We appreciate the continued support of the community and look forward to delivering results.
***
## **Next Governance Steps**
As the proposals does not fall under the simplified governance exemptions, the proposal will require the following steps:
**1. Tally Vote:** Otherwise, the proposal will be posted to Tally for the final vote.
# [TFIP-34] Foundation Update: Wallet Recovery and Treasury Consolidation
### **Summary:**
As mentioned in the Q3 DAO report, part of the Foundation’s ongoing cleanup initiatives has involved an analysis of legacy TrueFi wallets and smart contracts. We have concluded reviewing historical DAO wallets to ensure that all on-chain assets are properly accounted for and managed under Foundation oversight.
During this process, several legacy wallets were identified and handed over to the Foundation. After verifying ownership and confirming that the balances were idle and not linked to any active operations or obligations, we plan to claim these assets to fund ongoing Foundation activities and support DAO operations.
Below is the **final overview list** following the latest verification and updates:
| **Wallet Name** | **Wallet Address** | **Owner** | **Asset** | **Network** | **Balance** |
| ----------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ---------- | --------- | ----------- | ----------- |
| Revenue Wallet | `0xEEECA18FF2EEA7663f6E6348fAfc859958d7Cb99` | TrueFi DAO | USDC | Arbitrum | 3,564 |
| Revenue Wallet | `0xEEECA18FF2EEA7663f6E6348fAfc859958d7Cb99` | TrueFi DAO | USDT | Arbitrum | 1,041 |
| Revenue Wallet | `0xEEECA18FF2EEA7663f6E6348fAfc859958d7Cb99` | TrueFi DAO | ARB | Arbitrum | 45,000 |
| Protocol Treasury | `0x863461596aB57b91B873b26D4F0a701a9703B9Ca` | TrueFi DAO | USDC | Ethereum | 32,008 |
| Protocol Treasury | `0x863461596aB57b91B873b26D4F0a701a9703B9Ca` | TrueFi DAO | TRU | Ethereum | 188,074 |
| | | | | | |
> \*\*Note:\*\*The previously listed wallets “Loan Rating Rewards – Distributor” and “Rating Loans” were found to **belong to the legacy TrueFi ecosystem** and are **not under DAO ownership or control**. These wallets are therefore excluded from this proposal.
The **Revenue Wallet** on Arbitrum remains part of the consolidation effort; however, this **Tally vote will not trigger any direct on-chain action**. The wallet is a **3-out-of-6 multisignature address**, originally used to receive the Arbitrum grant and subsequently to collect protocol and product fees from the Arbitrum network.
This vote grants the Foundation the **mandate to recover these funds** and to **re-establish control over this multisig** in alignment with current governance and operational structures.
The **stkTRU Distributor** will receive later contract upgrades as part of another Tally package proposal.
***
### **Rationale**
This initiative aligns with our broader goals of:
* Streamlining wallet management and improving transparency
* Consolidating DAO-controlled assets to simplify treasury operations
* Supporting continued development and ecosystem growth as we approach Elara’s launch
The total of these balances will be transferred into **Foundation-managed wallets** for operational use, where they will remain **fully visible and traceable on-chain**.
All transfers will go to the existing multi-signature wallet already used for Foundation operations:
**New Treasury — 0xC03151bAc97F692e5b71Eb49635A624141f7477b**
***
### **Additional Context**
The Foundation continues to work diligently to **repair and organize legacy infrastructure** inherited from prior entities that administered TrueFi.
As with this effort, what may appear as a simple operational task often becomes complex due to the **absence of proper handovers, missing documentation, or outdated procedures**.
Despite this, progress is being made systematically to ensure TrueFi’s operations and governance remain transparent, auditable, and compliant moving forward.
# [TFIP-33.1] Update Canceller Signers
### **Summary**
This proposal seeks to update the composition of the Canceller multisignature wallet by creating a new 4/5 multisignature wallet with the updated slate of engaged Board and community members, and by transferring Canceller rights to this new wallet. This approach mirrors the precedent set in TFIP-16 and ensures timely and reliable execution of Canceller responsibilities.
***
### **Abstract**
In TFIP-16, a new 4/6 multisignature wallet was created at 0x38358B194A863d40677D774823e6Fc922a100471, and Canceller rights were revoked from the previous wallet (0x8c8FcA3812c4272756120E207D3ED496A73Bc528) and granted to the new one.
More recently, TFIP-33 proposed updating the signer composition of the Canceller wallet. However, the execution of TFIP-33 on Tally did not produce the intended changes because the Timelock contract cannot directly alter the composition of a Gnosis Safe multisignature wallet.
To resolve this issue and ensure the Canceller remains both independent and functional, the most effective and expedient approach is to replicate the process from TFIP-16:
* Deploy a new 4/5 multisignature wallet with the updated slate of signers - 0x950183164888F9c51A05D0906202B75F7309Cf09
* Revoke Canceller rights from the existing wallet (0x38358B194A863d40677D774823e6Fc922a100471).
* Grant Canceller rights to the newly created wallet. (0x950183164888F9c51A05D0906202B75F7309Cf09)
This ensures that the Canceller role is held by an active, responsive, and reliable group of participants.
**Proposed New Slate of Canceller Signers (4/5)**
* Ferengi \[Board Member] - 0x25022f216b97641d396e6Efe68ba45F80AD7A56b
* Krysh Patel \[Board Member] - 0x1CcD47778a28e641df3BbA23fe9d802c4F6c150b
* Romain Rechtman \[Board Member] - 0x5E7bDb4878d28a4883aDe19d5E96203B8C323393
* Stefan Tanase \[TrueFi Finance] - 0x5D545DE6e81da180dBbb57926a0e49be7c868Fb7
* Sebastien Davies \[Board Member] - 0x97F8De405D7e70c0F66c2308d9882A9227097d6f
***
### **Next Steps**
1. **Create New Multisignature Wallet**
The candidates have deployed a new 4/5 Gnosis Safe wallet with the proposed signer set. - 0x950183164888F9c51A05D0906202B75F7309Cf09
1. **Tally Proposal Actions**
* **Revoke Role**: Revoke Canceller rights from the current wallet (0x38358B194A863d40677D774823e6Fc922a100471).
`revokeRole("0xfd643c72710c63c0180259aba6b2d05451e3591a24e58b62239378085726f783", "0x38358B194A863d40677D774823e6Fc922a100471")`
* **Grant Role**: Grant Canceller rights to the new multisignature wallet.
`grantRole("0xfd643c72710c63c0180259aba6b2d05451e3591a24e58b62239378085726f783", "0x950183164888F9c51A05D0906202B75F7309Cf09")`
**Implementation** 
Upon a successful Forum proposal, the final proposal will be brought to all stkTRU holders for an on-chain vote on Tally. If approved, the necessary actions will be executed automatically with the Canceller role will be transferred to the multi-signature wallet controlled by the Independent Board of Directors and the mentioned individuals.