# LEGAL DOCUMENTATION FOR CLYDESDALE DEAL ------------------------- ## Clydesdale Instruction Sets [Governance Design](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip65-clydesdale-governance-framework-setup/16565) The actions of the Trustee on behalf of the Trust are exclusively determined by Instruction sets. Each set are to be setup as Signal Requests for MKR vote and executed upon by Trustee given a positive vote and Maker Committee validation. ### Executed Instructions sets 1. [Ratification of Initial Setup](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZeCuuKw774Vzr76HFU6Jw1ZPyz44zeCoq35YNeJ5vUMW) 2. [Setup Transactional Third-party Relationships](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmS73XxAfdVuBRRBsZDKr71D8FAmDbPYmQa6RwjDg7xFMo) * [Bank Sygnum Restriction Letter](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYrC3fNo5d8jKKW2wLmRWDGgsNc7nxuJDVfngJjYeRouT) 3. [Pilot Deployment (1M)](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmVXbNHr4MKyw7EdSvpbq6VScqMJZ8Aad7Mzn7ev1kcRMz) 4. [Initial ETF Deployment (250M)](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmStKYTLZTPZAtcPQkTXqNjWpKSGdHGhhw2pi3Ct5KbxeK) 5. [Second EFT Deployment based upon Asset Reallocation Vote (250M)](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmeX5eKYvrraEv6L5NNEPKJEf3PfUb7N1sf32uPdn1cJ4p) 6. [QUARTERLY RETURN OF SURPLUS FUND](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/Qmf7oGxgVoGKMGkzPi2T6nBSTLgrU5C7jmNqaefjJ52Zup) 7. [RATIFICATION OF MODIFIED SETUP](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmNyfM8JhV2Mf5wxADAJvheZ2E7CCr6WxxgPaRuiQAKHz8?_gl=1*vj5gip*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) 8. [750M DEPLOYMENT INTO JAT2 SYGNUM BANK EXECUTION MANDATE](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZAeKiucY82awzirmFUh7qpX1rRtzg7oLiPhu2z64bg9T?_gl=1*1lx5t4o*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) 9. [BI-WEEKLY EVALUATION PROCESS & CAPITAL RETURN](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmahKaWHBFrhHwtkiVKAMJWjPq7UeEkkNYpM54oBjY4kpp?_gl=1*1chtas0*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) ### Template Instruction sets These are templates and must be edited as required in an actual Signal Request. More templates may be produced as necessary * [Liquidation](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLTOVQAbKonVET9tOngp7TjXkH6AA9Oi/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110828420241840553747&rtpof=true&sd=true) * [Emergency Shutdown](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kvScMMENN3IGGKfEO719yE62aU1g3yv8/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110828420241840553747&rtpof=true&sd=true) ## Key Clydesdale Legal Documents ### V1 of Documents (inception) * [James Asset Trust Declaration - Amended](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYXt7DAAadGS1xMoaRM39drnwWNZQJ72AGQ9W7KWAaq9m) * [Deed of Amendment and restatement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmRbUFayHtDwGNwoWYeNShowXkBFhwu8zvxZ6uJG3UdEmP) * [Trustee Resolution on Amendment](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYXRftAxLCH6v9ogvmWweyka5HVyLFYxd5TnHhx9c61GT) * [James Share Trust](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmbhSZBtdsdDWxSmjYetRDzwXeXoXVZL6m9CpFJNFu6veK) * [James Asset (PTC) Limited](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZqNGUfeg92a4iteQY4vSzV11PnZj51FjCNtZPU1uqBVX) ### V2 of Documents (amended, and added to, at DC increase) * [JAT 1 Deed of Amendment and Restatement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmX8Y1yjy8xj7jc3pLjeXBKp4sDJCpEocdztFsSjiWqcoC?_gl=1*b5xz5r*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMzU1MC4yOC4wLjA.) * [JAT 1 Amended Deed Poll](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYRLwQ2Qne6qXKhWjLPmYm7LkDWtn3XPXYndFfziDBDFA?_gl=1*18bk3p3*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) * [JAT 1 & Monetalis Reporting Agreement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/Qme5m5Hjc2DB7GX5q3NA17azfFpBy7Mr1LDuz5iZXxmkeG?_gl=1*1i2741q*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) * [JAT 2 Deed Poll](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmQjyDzqV1jryZhqiwH5PTm4B2RjGi8cgnEBB3dF1rpLCM?_gl=1*1ge2aty*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) * [JAT 2 & Monetalis Reporting Agreement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmdMv5o2JevnRGUwJXiAq3Ttc4bpH1mZqE6ckhDRzVCBev?_gl=1*hfr9pq*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) ## External Memo's on Clydesdale * [Memo on BVI VASP Act - Appleby](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmSzLRPw1KqSQiGQ7GfgQ4qGaLXeiyi1qyLaoiHrniHXDk?_gl=1*j838tv*_ga*MjMyNzA5Mzk5LjE2Nzg0NzU0MDM.*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3ODQ3NTQwMi4xLjEuMTY3ODQ3NTQxNC40OC4wLjA.) * [Reed Smith - Structure Memo](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmfEuoL8D6mFm1RwMmJDmiJa4NjdusXas5wnUmANdfZWfK?_gl=1*tmbhl3*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMzU1MC4yOC4wLjA.) * [Appleby Memo on Trust](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmaNP3oh3NhPXxsnWFZKNsE1XkhgtvFoFXbHEoQKQajosZ?_gl=1*1dv98yz*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY4MDI4NDI2OC40LjEuMTY4MDI4NDU5MS41OC4wLjA.) * [DAO Resolution #12](https://amaranth-secondary-stingray-939.mypinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZ94FG8YXK4seyBHBi2FfTfW5URtBqbCb7JZAB1HGkTNF) ------------------------- # ORIGINAL FORUM THREAD FOR EXTRA CONTEXT. THE BELOW POSTS CONTAIN THE ABOVE LINKS ## Source: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip65-monetalis-clydesdale-documentation-hq/17923 ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2023-06-21 05:03:42 UTC | #1 ![image|690x446](upload://6v7mEdJbXJ4EacOBiT1KrSauibt.jpeg) This post assembles all documentation for Clydesdale (originally MIP65 pre-Endgame) in one place for community convenience. We expect to keep this updated going forward. ### [Link to Clydesdale on Makerburn](https://makerburn.com/#/collateral/RWA007-A) ## Proposals & MKR Votes |Request|Vote| |---|:---:| |[Intitial Proposal](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip65-monetalis-clydesdale-liquid-bond-strategy-execution/13148) |[Vote](https://vote.makerdao.com/polling/QmXHM6us)| |[Asset Allocation Proposal](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/signal-request-asset-allocation-of-mip65-clydesdale/15922)|[Vote](https://vote.makerdao.com/polling/QmXedMr8)| |[Proposal Amendment](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip4c3-sp4-mip65-amendments/17326)|[Vote](https://vote.makerdao.com/polling/QmareTAa)| | [Asset Reallocation](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/signal-request-mip65-asset-reallocation/18295)| [Vote](https://vote.makerdao.com/polling/QmSfMtTM#vote-breakdown)| |[DC Increase Proposal](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/proposal-to-increase-debt-ceiling-for-mip65-by-750m-to-1250m/20060/1)|[Vote](https://vote.makerdao.com/polling/QmNTSr9j#vote-breakdown)| ## Maker Reviews/Verifications * [Asset Allocation](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/signal-request-asset-allocation-of-mip65-clydesdale/15922/2?u=allan_pedersen) * [Counterparty](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip65-counterparties-community-assessment/17786) * [Legal/Structural for initial implementation](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/rwa-007-mip65-monetalis-clydesdale-legal-assessment/17834) * [Legal/Structural for DC Increase](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/the-dc-increase-mip65-legal-assessment/20267) * [Technical](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/rwa007-mip65-monetalis-clydesdale-ces-domain-team-assessment/17787) ## Clydesdale Instruction Sets [Governance Design](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip65-clydesdale-governance-framework-setup/16565) The actions of the Trustee on behalf of the Trust are exclusively determined by Instruction sets. Each set are to be setup as Signal Requests for MKR vote and executed upon by Trustee given a positive vote and Maker Committee validation. ### Executed Instructions sets 1. [Ratification of Initial Setup](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZeCuuKw774Vzr76HFU6Jw1ZPyz44zeCoq35YNeJ5vUMW) 2. [Setup Transactional Third-party Relationships](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmS73XxAfdVuBRRBsZDKr71D8FAmDbPYmQa6RwjDg7xFMo) * [Bank Sygnum Restriction Letter](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYrC3fNo5d8jKKW2wLmRWDGgsNc7nxuJDVfngJjYeRouT) 3. [Pilot Deployment (1M)](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmVXbNHr4MKyw7EdSvpbq6VScqMJZ8Aad7Mzn7ev1kcRMz) 4. [Initial ETF Deployment (250M)](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmStKYTLZTPZAtcPQkTXqNjWpKSGdHGhhw2pi3Ct5KbxeK) 5. [Second EFT Deployment based upon Asset Reallocation Vote (250M)](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmeX5eKYvrraEv6L5NNEPKJEf3PfUb7N1sf32uPdn1cJ4p) 6. [QUARTERLY RETURN OF SURPLUS FUND](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/Qmf7oGxgVoGKMGkzPi2T6nBSTLgrU5C7jmNqaefjJ52Zup) 7. [RATIFICATION OF MODIFIED SETUP](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmNyfM8JhV2Mf5wxADAJvheZ2E7CCr6WxxgPaRuiQAKHz8?_gl=1*vj5gip*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) 8. [750M DEPLOYMENT INTO JAT2 SYGNUM BANK EXECUTION MANDATE](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZAeKiucY82awzirmFUh7qpX1rRtzg7oLiPhu2z64bg9T?_gl=1*1lx5t4o*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) 9. [BI-WEEKLY EVALUATION PROCESS & CAPITAL RETURN](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmahKaWHBFrhHwtkiVKAMJWjPq7UeEkkNYpM54oBjY4kpp?_gl=1*1chtas0*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) ### Template Instruction sets These are templates and must be edited as required in an actual Signal Request. More templates may be produced as necessary * [Liquidation](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLTOVQAbKonVET9tOngp7TjXkH6AA9Oi/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110828420241840553747&rtpof=true&sd=true) * [Emergency Shutdown](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kvScMMENN3IGGKfEO719yE62aU1g3yv8/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110828420241840553747&rtpof=true&sd=true) ## Key Clydesdale Legal Documents ### V1 of Documents (inception) * [James Asset Trust Declaration - Amended](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYXt7DAAadGS1xMoaRM39drnwWNZQJ72AGQ9W7KWAaq9m) * [Deed of Amendment and restatement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmRbUFayHtDwGNwoWYeNShowXkBFhwu8zvxZ6uJG3UdEmP) * [Trustee Resolution on Amendment](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYXRftAxLCH6v9ogvmWweyka5HVyLFYxd5TnHhx9c61GT) * [James Share Trust](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmbhSZBtdsdDWxSmjYetRDzwXeXoXVZL6m9CpFJNFu6veK) * [James Asset (PTC) Limited](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZqNGUfeg92a4iteQY4vSzV11PnZj51FjCNtZPU1uqBVX) ### V2 of Documents (amended, and added to, at DC increase) * [JAT 1 Deed of Amendment and Restatement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmX8Y1yjy8xj7jc3pLjeXBKp4sDJCpEocdztFsSjiWqcoC?_gl=1*b5xz5r*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMzU1MC4yOC4wLjA.) * [JAT 1 Amended Deed Poll](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmYRLwQ2Qne6qXKhWjLPmYm7LkDWtn3XPXYndFfziDBDFA?_gl=1*18bk3p3*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) * [JAT 1 & Monetalis Reporting Agreement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/Qme5m5Hjc2DB7GX5q3NA17azfFpBy7Mr1LDuz5iZXxmkeG?_gl=1*1i2741q*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) * [JAT 2 Deed Poll](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmQjyDzqV1jryZhqiwH5PTm4B2RjGi8cgnEBB3dF1rpLCM?_gl=1*1ge2aty*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) * [JAT 2 & Monetalis Reporting Agreement](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmdMv5o2JevnRGUwJXiAq3Ttc4bpH1mZqE6ckhDRzVCBev?_gl=1*hfr9pq*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.) ## External Memo's on Clydesdale * [Memo on BVI VASP Act - Appleby](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmSzLRPw1KqSQiGQ7GfgQ4qGaLXeiyi1qyLaoiHrniHXDk?_gl=1*j838tv*_ga*MjMyNzA5Mzk5LjE2Nzg0NzU0MDM.*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3ODQ3NTQwMi4xLjEuMTY3ODQ3NTQxNC40OC4wLjA.) * [Reed Smith - Structure Memo](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmfEuoL8D6mFm1RwMmJDmiJa4NjdusXas5wnUmANdfZWfK?_gl=1*tmbhl3*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMzU1MC4yOC4wLjA.) * [Appleby Memo on Trust](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmaNP3oh3NhPXxsnWFZKNsE1XkhgtvFoFXbHEoQKQajosZ?_gl=1*1dv98yz*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY4MDI4NDI2OC40LjEuMTY4MDI4NDU5MS41OC4wLjA.) ------------------------- g_dip | 2022-09-15 19:01:29 UTC | #2 Thanks for posting the docs! Great to see the legal infrastructure continue to be open-sourced. ------------------------- flipflopflapdelegate | 2022-09-15 19:51:44 UTC | #3 Thanks for making these docs available to the community. One Question here. How is the **Maker Resolution** document Legally Binding? Is it submitted, verified, and accepted by the Trust, Trustee, Sygnum and CB? I ask because I see all it takes is 2 names, signatures, and dates. How does the trust, better yet Sygnum and Coinbase know/verify any changes and verify that such changes are authorized by MKR token owners? Besides the need to do a video conference by the two individuals and the language proposed on such document — can you please walk us through how this document protects MKR token owners from rogue actors. Thanks in advance. Cc: @christiancdpetersen ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2022-09-18 08:15:08 UTC | #4 Hi @flipflopflapdelegate So the Maker Resolution is as close as we can get - at this moment - to basically write a "program" that the MIP65 structure will, unambiguously, execute. The intent is to create complete clarity for MKR holders in respect of what MKR holders are agreeing to have executed within the MIP65 trust structure. I hope you can see that benefit with Maker Resolutions. Then comes the question of how have we setup the MIP65 structure "machinery" to ensure that it can only execute exactly that detailed Maker Resolution MKR holders have voted for. To make that happen we have put in place a good number of legal, structural and physical measures. Let me try to outline the process and its constraints: 1. The director of the trustee (riverfront - a legal entity under SHRM Group that is a professional trustee and administrator service) is required to ONLY execute based upon Maker Resolutions passed by Maker Governance and validated by Maker Committee. So when this "Maker Resolution paper" reach the director they must check online that the vote has passed and ensure that the Maker Committee members have approved it. (this requirement is in the legal docs). 2. Now given these two items are OK, the director can now start executing according to the Maker Resolution. But - importantly - it can't do so without approvals from the Fiduciary Group (which is part of another professional trustee and fund administrator group named Hatstone). And Fiduciary Group is required to check all actions proposed by Riverfront against the Maker Resolution. (again this is a requirement in the legal docs). 3. This requirement has further been physically setup in the transaction services that actually does something with the money - i.e. any transactions in Coinbase and Bank Sygnum requires physically the approval of both Riverfront and Fiduciary group. 4. On top of that we have worked with Bank Sygnum and Coinbase to constrain the action-set within these platforms materially such that even with the above "two set of legal entity approvals", they can only perform actions that are in scope of MIP65. (as encoded in the Bank Sygnum letter). And whenever possible automatic actions have been setup in the systems (i.e. Coinbase has a function that automatically converts USDC to USD when the USDC hits a wallet). In addition for certain larger transactions Bank Sygnum would be required to see the transaction be matched up with an appropriate Maker Resolution. 5. Also you have Monetalis acting as Reporting Agent and is informed by the transaction services and can of course engage with Maker for immediate actions (note that all parties: hatstone, SHRM etc can all be immediately removed and replaced by a Maker Resolution). This - in totality - we think - creates a strong process where MKR holders have very detailed control over what they want the structure to do - and can safely expect the structure to indeed do so. Now - we are already in development of a V2 of this. As we worked with the transaction platforms it became clear that many of them actually provide substantive API's that in fact allows even complex transaction flow across multiple platforms to be tied together and programmed. So in V2 we expect some of these transaction flows to be basically programs with parameters and a MKR vote should ideally start the execution of one of these programs with the MKR desired set parameters. I hope this explanation helps? ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2022-09-18 08:21:26 UTC | #5 We are firm believers that legal structures that connect with Maker Governance must always remain open source. Transparency remains a vital piece of the Maker story I believe. ------------------------- flipflopflapdelegate | 2022-09-18 09:28:11 UTC | #6 [quote="Allan_Pedersen, post:4, topic:17923"] I hope this explanation helps? [/quote] Indeed—the written breakdown you have provided is very helpful in understanding the process. Thank you Allan, much appreciated. ------------------------- christiancdpetersen | 2022-09-29 22:02:46 UTC | #7 The links below provide Permaweb copies of the Monetalis MIP65 resolutions for the executive spell: [Set-Up MIP65 Resolution No 1](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/86f318ad-3a9d-4556-a733-67e1791c2547/view) [Transaction Set-Up MIP65 Resolution No 2](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/c6d5b458-a2fe-42cc-87f6-3b8b2501bf36/view) [Pilot Deployment MIP65 Resolution No 3](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/16218db4-62ca-42a9-96bb-8c0c5db56b8d/view) [Initial Deployment MIP65 Resolution No 4](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/2e46de54-dd0b-48f1-b462-d00e1283eb7a/view) The following links provide Permaweb copies of the James Asset Trust and the James Share Trust as being ratified by Resolution No 1: [James Asset (PTC) Limited Declaration of Trust](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/3f128c91-95b3-42c2-983d-4c78bafbe65c/view) [James Asset (PTC) Limited Deed of Amendment and Restatement](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/4189f78a-2f53-4899-bcb7-18a1dae869b4/view) [James Asset (PTC) Limited Trustee Resolution](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/cb980427-47b2-468e-893d-666bd840ec34/view) [James Asset (PTC) Limited Memorandum and Articles of Association](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/fcb01af2-e7cf-4bbf-a360-03222778cbb8/view) [James Share Trust Settlement](https://app.ardrive.io/#/file/2b3fa15a-6d27-463f-8dcc-823a7fd9c3b8/view) ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2022-11-09 14:32:58 UTC | #8 Documents in the HQ post have been updated to include instructions for the 2nd allocation of 250M and various smaller corrections identified during implementation. We strive to keep the "HQ" fully updated. ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2023-03-10 19:19:32 UTC | #9 # Health Update: James Asset Structure & BVI VASP Act In the BVI, the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act 2022 (Act) came into force on 1 February 2023. When the James Asset structure was designed and set up, the Act (at that time in draft mode) was evaluated and it was concluded that the Act would not capture the structure’s activities. Notwithstanding the initial review, as the final version of the Act came into force earlier this year it was prudent to gain a more formal understanding of the structure’s status in respect of this Act. Appleby - a global law firm with offices in the BVI - have reviewed the situation and delivered the following memorandum (now also stored permanently above in the MIP65 HQ post). It concludes that *“​​[t]he Trustee would not be subject to the VASP Act and therefore does not require to be registered as a VASP.”* [Memo on BVI Act - Appleby - 10/3/2023](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmSzLRPw1KqSQiGQ7GfgQ4qGaLXeiyi1qyLaoiHrniHXDk?_gl=1*z0osi7*_ga*MjMyNzA5Mzk5LjE2Nzg0NzU0MDM.*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3ODQ3NTQwMi4xLjEuMTY3ODQ3NTQxNC40OC4wLjA.) Given the conclusions of the Memorandum, we will **NOT** be proposing that Maker Governance instructs the Trustee to undertake a registration and licensing for the VASP Act. For avoidance of doubt, anyone in the Maker Community, reaching a different conclusion, can freely propose differently. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-03-23 23:51:37 UTC | #10 # Clydesdale reporting framework (alpha version) ## Introduction This post outlines the proposed reporting framework to support Clydesdale. The reporting framework was designed to: * Provide full transparency.All information presented will be produced using data provided by banking partners linked to Clydesdale. * Keep stakeholders up to date: Reports and supporting documentation will be produced and distributed on a regular basis. Monetalis, as the reporting agent will: * Produce the reports on a monthly basis within a week from month-end * Distribute the report via the Clydesdale Discord channel These report is an alpha version and it will evolve overtime. Importantly it will comform to MIP105 as it evolves. ## Report overview The report will comprise of 4 different sections: 1. Portfolio 2. Trust – Budget vs Actual costs 3. Health of Trust 4. Upcoming improvements / optimisation ### Report sample ![](upload://59wkESCAsNxXuqFzd2Zu1kwJTTq.jpeg) ### Report details #### Section 1 The portfolio section will be constructed using data extracted directly from our banking partners. The data source for this section of the report will be a "Detailed Asset statement" by Banking Partner by product. The available fields used to create the aggregate information presented in the report are: **Asset statement** * Banking partner * Product ID * Purchase Date * Units * Price * Total buy * Maturity date * Current NaV * Maturity Value * P&L $ * P&L % This section will also include the Current Vault value at MakerDAO and the associated history of returns to the RWAjar. #### Section layout The section will be divided into: * Overview section: A general summary of the portfolio and holding * Details by provider section: This section will provide the details of the holding by asset type, along with a list of all costs and charges * Vault value at MakerDAO and history of returns ## Section 2: Trust – Budget vs Actual costs The initial report will present the budget for the next 9 months, up to and including Dec 2023. The report will include: * **Budgeted costs**: for each party linked to the Trust and, for each of these charges, it will refer to a specific agreement approved by the community * **Actual costs**: A list of actual costs incurred by the trust. Each cost will be supported by a copy of the relevant invoice * **Variance analysis**: A list of exceptional costs incurred by the trust which will be supported by notes and associated invoices ## Section 3: Health of Trust In this section we will provide relevant updates about markets, change in regulatory rules/environment, or any relevant news about all parties involved in the value chain. The information will be supported by links to the original articles/sources. ## Section 4: Upcoming Improvements/Optimisation A list of items that will be proposed to optimise fees/processes and or components in the value chain ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-06-16 12:41:19 UTC | #11 # Clydesdale Asset Allocation ## as of 31st May 2023 ![image|690x440](upload://lLXA006etNYHDhAlnO7rsS2lWGB.png) As of May 2023 $1.059bn have been deployed through Clydesdale across three different asset classes: * iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr (**IB01**) * iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr (**IBTA**) * US T-bills ladder The table below provides an overview of the DAI borrowed and the Yield generated to date, as well as the surplus created. ![image|418x427](upload://vMIV29LEkcvybqDswyYHinrmKAQ.png) Where: * **NAV**: represents the capital deployed plus the yield generated to date * **Current surplus**: Represents the surplus generated to date by the different assets * **Paid back surplus**: Represents the surplus already paid back to Maker * **Locked-in surplus**: Represents the outstanding surplus that will be earned when US T-bills reach maturity The chart below provides a comparison between the overall monthly yield generated by the portfolio and a reference yield of 4%. After the initial setup, the portfolio has generally been able to outperform the reference yield. With the exception of Feb when a drop in yield of the IBTA shares have negatively impacted the overall yield of the portfolio. ![image|690x202](upload://37wF84bQAygsbGh4WfOIBc28ACU.png) Asset class-specific monthly yields are presented below. It worth noting that deployment into US T-bills have commenced in May 2023, so yield for this asset class are restricted to this month. ![image|690x199](upload://5oSdHALRtEQ6phS1E7uhmOK35jH.png) ------------------------- Patrick_J | 2023-06-16 11:23:02 UTC | #12 Thanks for the update. I have a question about the "Paid back surplus" figure which does not seem to match the [on-chain transaction](https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd71f425a6fd0daabfd5df52e56688c3d93025dde065ea322c5b0e5c3f399ec74). What is the cause of the discrepancy? ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-06-16 12:55:40 UTC | #13 My apologies, the figures have now been updated accordingly. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-06-16 20:35:05 UTC | #14 Based on the Reallocation process for Clydesdale/MIP65 presented [Here](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/operationalizing-the-allocatordao-reallocation-process-for-clydesdale-mip65/20961) and our month-end reconciliation we have determined that currently: * The Viridian Max DC (VDMC) stands at **1,037M** * The Value Trust Asset for JAT1 and JAT2 combined is **1,133M** Therefore, based on the reallocation rules summarised below, the sum of $62.78M derived from the maturity of the first batch US T-bills will be paid respectively to: * 62.5M to the Vault * 280k to the Surplus buffer. ![image|690x290](upload://bmrPz9XkNK4JsiM21Z8CCe4aD17.png) ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-06-30 15:36:30 UTC | #15 Based on the Reallocation process for Clydesdale/MIP65 presented [here](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/operationalizing-the-allocatordao-reallocation-process-for-clydesdale-mip65/20961) and our month-end reconciliation, we have determined that as of 30/06/2023: - The Viridian Max DV (VDMC) stands at: **1,181M** - The Value Trust Asset for JAT1 and JAT2 combined is **1,139M** Therefore based on the reallocation rules: - 62.5M will be rolled over and re-invested into a new batch of US T-Bills - 390k will be paid to the Surplus buffer ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-07-07 20:24:30 UTC | #16 # Clydesdale Asset Allocation ## as of 30/06/2023 ![image|690x466](upload://2QLeVr5obYTdL8gyRKcznQKA3Mb.png) Since our last report, the first two batches of US T-bills reached maturity, funds received were allocated as follows: * $62.5m was paid back into the vault * $1.944m was paid into the Surplus buffer * $62.5m is awaiting redeployment ![image|488x335](upload://Rsz9rKIYjenV3xA50BQQ7uNU1k.png) * The Current surplus shown above is a combination cash in the bank that needs to be deployed and the surplus generated by the two ETFs, IBTA and IB01. * The Cash in the bank figure includes $62.5m of principal repaid by the maturity of the second batch of US T-bills and in the process of being redeployed. ![image|690x378](upload://ryFqxLq1LsYmuLM4Z4RWYH36L2b.png) ![image|690x191](upload://ahszFGEWb35Ybp40rdzDXLHYCur.png) The overall yield has been affected by the performance of IBTA. As a result of feedback received, we have introduced additional charts to Holding, Surplus and Profits for the two ETF products: IB01 and IBTA. ![image|690x193](upload://oenGQqIFwQEDeLmpC8JluOoBhw9.png) ![image|690x192](upload://b0pnw2n74EsQOSYuN48e2WKdjws.png) ------------------------- Patrick_J | 2023-07-07 19:00:10 UTC | #17 [quote="Wrongcomma, post:16, topic:17923"] Since our last report, the first two batches of US T-bills reached maturity, funds received were allocated as follows: * $62.5m was paid back into the vault * $1.87m was paid into the Surplus buffer * $62.5m is awaiting redeployment [/quote] I don't particularly want to get into the habit of nitpicking these reports, it's really not my job and there are people the DAO *is* paying to do this. But these numbers don't match the on-chain record. There's been 1,944,188 DAI paid back to the Surplus Buffer, not 1.87m. Source: ![image|690x146](upload://1CtzQ3Ve5LVCwdLeAy4uaB6JC09.png) and the earliest of those payments was not profit from T bills maturing but from the sale of ETF holdings. Given the implicit trust being placed in these structures it's really important that these reports are accurate. Could you please double check your numbers and edit accordingly? ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-07-07 21:33:06 UTC | #18 Hi Patrick, apologies for the incorrect amount, I have amended the report to to match the on-chain record. I also wanted to clarify that the earlier payment of $1,273,243 was indeed from the ETFs. We appreciate your ongoing trust and look forward to return further yield to the surplus buffer in the coming days. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-08 18:50:13 UTC | #19 We think you might need to reconcile the following differences between the reported numbers and what is seen on Makerburn.com June 30: ![Screen Shot 2023-08-08 at 2.34.43 PM|300x400](upload://h8kSO6OysfrZobdpwXzqVQW6V9.jpeg) ![Screen Shot 2023-08-08 at 2.35.50 PM|200x300](upload://h1FMYZuYL4PMq8VuxrCSIbntpLh.jpeg) This is a small discrepancy, but still requires reconciliation. May 31: ![Screen Shot 2023-08-08 at 2.39.48 PM|300x400](upload://sRs2cG8SMJPp5eEgY2FQHAdeFtt.jpeg) ![Screen Shot 2023-08-08 at 2.38.39 PM|200x300](upload://nVShBpuRaUDYR5eUUMES8hUqJGt.png) **Note that the number reported on Makerburn is around 51m more than the summed NAV reported on May 31.** Was this vault undercollateralized on May 31 or is there a cash balance not reported with the two ETFs and the tbills? ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-11 07:05:22 UTC | #20 **REPORT: CLYDESDALE & COINBASE CUSTODY** *IMPORTANT I: Interim Format* As part of the Endgame implementation, the relevant Maker ecosystem actors and arrangers are going through a reporting review for the purpose of standardising the reporting and accounting across Maker’s RWA portfolio. Monetalis, of course, supports this effort and is looking forward to effectuating this standard. However, until this standard is agreed and implemented, we will report an interim and aggregate format. *IMPORTANT II: Verification* To verify the interim reporting made by Monetalis, the underlying accounts have been reconciled and reviewed by SES. # 1.REPORT ON CLYDESDALE ## 1.1 ETF Positions (JAT1) ### 1.1.1 Market Value Balance Begin and End of period 30/06/2023 to 31/07/2023 of ETF products 1. Begin balances (30/6/2023 Sygnum Custody Account balance statement): |Asset|Qty|Av. Purchase Price|Unit price (EOM June 2023)|Value| | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | |IB01|3,376,453.00|$102.52|$ 105.40|$ 355,878,146.20| |IBTA|28,967,049.00|$5.165|$ 5.23|$ 151,497,666.27| ||||**Total**|**$ 507,375,812.47**| NOTE: In April 2023 IBO1 (8,540) and IBTA (73,486) were sold for surplus repayment. In May 2023 IBTA (84,108) were sold to fund expenses (custody, bank, admin etc). 2. End balances (31/07/2023 Sygnum Custody Account balance statement) |Asset|Qty|Av. Purchase Price|Unit price(EOM July 2023)|Value| | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | |IB01|3,376,453.00|$102.52|$ 105.80|$ 357,228,727.40| |IBTA|28,967,049.00|$5.165|$ 5.24|$ 151,497,666.27| ||||**Total**|**$ 509,102,965.31**| ### 1.1.2. Movements in period (Cash basis only) 1. Market Value Movement: $ 1,727,152.84 2. Sale/Purchase of ETF: 0 3. Paid Expenses: $0 4. Paid Surplus: $0 5. Net movement in period: $ 1,727,152.84 ### 1.1.3 Surplus in ETF 1. Surplus paid-in earlier: DAI 1,273,243 2. Surplus paid in period: DAI 0 3. Surplus remaining in position (Market Value 31/7/2023): $9,102,965.31 (before fees) An order to liquidate 52,000 shares of IB01 and 286,303 shares of IBTA to return accumulated surplus (estimate 10/8/2023: $7.019M) minus expenses for the last quarter has been submitted at the beginning of July and it has now been approved. https://vote.makerdao.com/executive/template-executive-vote-enhanced-dai-savings-rate-activation-spark-protocol-debt-ceiling-increase-rwa-vault-updates-avc-member-compensation-for-q2-2023-dao-resolution-for-monetalis-clydesdale-launch-project-funding-spark-proxy-spell-execution-august-2-2023 This will be executed in the coming days. The remaining surplus would be returned under the reallocation to t-bills to be proposed (more in 2.5) ## 1.2. T-bill Positions (JAT2) ### 1.2.1 Balance of t-bills Begin and End of period 30/06/2023 to 31/07/2023 1. Begin balance (30/6/2023 Sygnum Custody Account balance statement): |Purchase Date|Maturity Date|Profit (EOM)|Yield (YTM)|Price|Total Buy|Value at Maturity| | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | |15/5/2023|13/7/2023|0.63%|4.99%|99.20|$ 62,441,360.06|$ 62,945,000.00| |16/5/2023|3/8/2023|0.62%|5.06%|98.92|$ 62,449,939.95|$ 63,134,000.00| |17/5/2023|17/8/2023|0.62%|5.18%|98.71|$ 62,449,970.87|$ 63,264,700.00| |22/5/2023|31/8/2023|0.55%|5.16%|98.59|$ 62,449,898.13|$ 63,340,900.00| |23/5/2023|14/9/2023|0.55%|5.24%|98.39|$ 62,449,985.30|$ 63,472,300.00| |25/5/2023|5/10/2023|0.52%|5.24%|98.13|$ 62,449,982.04|$ 63,641,900.00| |26/5/2023|12/10/2023|0.51%|5.31%|98.02|$ 62,449,934.48|$ 63,711,600.00| |7/6/2023|2/11/2023|0.32%|5.34%|97.88|$ 62,449,916.05|$ 63,801,900.00| |14/6/2023|30/11/2023|0.24%|5.35%|97.58|$ 62,449,998.79|$ 63,997,900.00| |||||**Total**|**$562,040,985.67**|**$571,310,200.00**| Notes: “Profit EOM” is not calculated on a market value basis, but on an arithmetic basis that assumes t-bills are held to maturity and Profit EOM is the proportional yield generated from purchase date to EOM. Profit EOM is not annualised, whereas Yield YTM is annualised yield. “Total Buy” is the total t-bill purchased amount after trading costs. “Profit & Yield” (EOM and YTM) is the profit and yield on the relevant Total Buy amount. 2. End balance |Purchase Date|Maturity Date|Profit (EOM)|Yield (YTM)|Price|Total Buy|Value at Maturity| | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | |16/5/2023|3/8/2023|1.05%|5.06%|98.92|$ 62,449,939.95|$ 63,134,000.00| |17/5/2023|17/8/2023|1.06%|5.18%|98.71|$ 62,449,970.87|$ 63,264,700.00| |22/5/2023|31/8/2023|0.99%|5.16%|98.59|$ 62,449,898.13|$ 63,340,900.00| |23/5/2023|14/9/2023|0.99%|5.24%|98.39|$ 62,449,985.30|$ 63,472,300.00| |25/5/2023|5/10/2023|0.96%|5.24%|98.13|$ 62,449,982.04|$ 63,641,900.00| |26/5/2023|12/10/2023|0.96%|5.31%|98.02|$ 62,449,934.48|$ 63,711,600.00| |7/6/2023|2/11/2023|0.76%|5.34%|97.88|$ 62,449,916.05|$ 63,801,900.00| |14/6/2023|30/11/2023|0.68%|5.35%|97.58|$ 62,449,998.79|$ 63,997,900.00| |11/7/2023|28/12/2023|0.30%|5.43%|97.61|$ 62,449,027.87|$ 64,028,900.00| |31/7/2023|11/1/2024|0%|5.46%|97.61|$ 76,927,893.62|$ 78,813,900.00| |||||**Total**|**$638,976,547.1**|**$651,208,000**| ### 1.2.2 Movements in period 1. Maturities in period: +$ 62,945,000.00 2. Purchases of T-bills in period: + $ 139,376,921.49 3. Payments of Expenses (admin, legal, custody and trading cost): = $ 375,475.79 4. Repayments to Vault: - $0 5. Payments to Surplus Buffer: - DAI 390,945 6. Net movement in period of Total Buy: $76,935,561.43 7. Net movement in period of Value at Maturity: $179,897,800.00 ### 1.2.3 Surplus in T-bills 1. Aggregate T-bills Surplus paid earlier: DAI 280,000 2. Surplus Matured in July 1. DAI 390,945 - paid 07/07/2023 2. DAI 444,966 - paid 03/08/2023 ## 1.3. Yield + Collateralization ratio (JAT1+JAT2) ### 1.3.1 Portfolio Instruments Yields (average) [note: instrument yields are excluding any structural costs and expenses and focus on the yield of the underlying instruments] 1. ETF portfolio yield in period: **0.34%** (pls note this is NOT annualised yield) 2. ETF portfolio annualised yield since inception: 1. IB01: **4.48%** 2. IBTA: **2.61%** 3. Realised T-bills portfolio yield in period (from realised maturities) (annualised): **5.19%** 4. Realised T-bills portfolio yield since inception (annualised): **5.17%** ## 1.4. Collateralization Ratio The chart below provides a view of the collateralization ratio for the entire portfolio. The ratio has been calculated as: (ETF Value up to period + TBills value to period + Cash in the bank)/ DAI Borrowed. ![|602x279](upload://p532olwZJK0KlnizBjQL5RVTtub.png) ## 1.5 Outlook & Notes We expect to propose to the Maker community in separate posts: 1. New instruction set to propose a reallocation of the entire ETF portfolio into the current T-bills ladder strategy. 2. New instruction set to comply with new Scope Framework adjustments in respect of how Trustee determines and executes automatic purchase/sale of t-bills and return to vault/pay to surplus buffer to maintain certain parameters in respect of Maker balance sheet and Vault performance. As a note on expenses, we remind you that JAT1 and JAT2 require regular payments to the trustee, administrator, arranger and bank for services. These are generally, for process simplification, aggregated and deducted with quarterly intervals (except the direct trading cost). Thus on a cash basis, the expenses are “lumpy”. —-- # 2. REPORT ON COINBASE CUSTODY ## 2.1. Begin and End Balances NOTE: 31/5/2023 the full 500M USDC was transferred in full to Coinbase Custody Wallet. The Coinbase Custody arrangements includes 6 “Cold Storage” wallets and 1 ”Trading wallet” Note II: Rewards are paid one month in arrears. 1. Begin: 1. Cold A to F: **USDC 499,920,000** (with each Cold Wallet having a balance of *USDC 83,320,000*) 2. Trading Wallet: **USDC 115,616.43855** (hereof USDC 80,000 as holdback for future expenses and USDC 35,616 rewards) 2. End: 1. Cold A to F: USDC **499,920,000** 2. Trading Wallet: USDC **1,183,938.630105** ## 2.2 Movements in period 1. Inflow into CB: $0 2. Outflow from CB to Vault: $0 3. Rewards Paid into CB: USDC 1,068,322.19175 4. Outflow from CB to Surplus: $0 5. Expenses paid: $0 - ## 2.3 Portfolio Instrument Rewards 1. Rewards on balance in period: USDC 1,068,322.19175 (Corresponding to 2.6% annualised rewards) 2. Rewards in aggregate: USDC 1,103,939 ## 2.4 Outlook & Notes We expect no changes to this process or instrument, but forewarn that no costs have been paid to date: i.e. no legal, trust setup, trustee, admin and arranger fees. We expect these to be charged within the next period as per agreement.. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-10 22:01:35 UTC | #21 Thank you for these three reports! Very much appreciated. Looking at the ending balances of JAT1 + JAT2 reported for July 31, 2023, we find [quote="Wrongcomma, post:20, topic:17923"] **Total** **$ 509,102,965.31** [/quote] and ("Total Buy" figure below) [quote="Wrongcomma, post:20, topic:17923"] **Total** **$576,535,187.04** [/quote] This sums to 1,085,638,152.35 in marked-to-market ETFs and cost basis tbills on July 31, 2023. On Makerburn, for the entire period reported upon (June 30, 2023 to July 31, 2023), the vault debt is shown to be 1,139,950,318. This is confirmed on DaiStats.com, with the added precision of making it 1,139,950,318.23. **This results in a gap of 54,312,165.88.** Even if we choose to use the future nominal figure for the tbills when they mature, we still find a significant gap. The vault debt was the same amount on June 30 following the 62,500,000 repayment so the gap is larger at the start of the month. Could there be a cash balance on July 31, 2023 that needs to be included in this report? Or some other assets in JAT1 or JAT2? Or perhaps some other way for us to estimate the collateral value? ------------------------- fumoffuXx | 2023-08-11 03:33:11 UTC | #22 Can you post a full consolidated balance sheet with all entities in the corporate structure. Thanks. ------------------------- fumoffuXx | 2023-08-11 06:57:42 UTC | #24 Please get ur CPA to perform a proper reconciliation, this is not acceptable ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-11 07:15:47 UTC | #25 The Sum totals have been updated. It appears that when copying and pasting from Excel into the forum something went amiss ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-11 07:18:38 UTC | #26 All underlying bank transactions, Coinbase account and Custody accounts feeding into the report were internally and independently fully reconciled by SES. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-11 23:48:05 UTC | #27 We continue to have a few outstanding questions, such as why so much cash was uninvested and not earning yield. Rather than continue to clutter this thread, **could you just post copies of the statements from the cash and brokerage accounts for JAT1 and JAT2?** It would go a long way to just letting everyone get their own records squared. You can see here where [even Steakhouse has had to revise their own reporting](http://forum.makerdao.com/t/real-world-asset-report-2023-06/21461/5?u=gfxlabs) because they needed to reconcile the $12m drop in reported NAV for June 30. There's no hope for Maker's revenue forecasts if its largest bucket of investments isn't producing records that are transparent and permissionless. There shouldn't be much redaction needed beyond account numbers - how much cash/ETFs/tbills the trusts have at any given time isn't particularly sensitive information. We think it would go a long way to closing the loop on this conversation and allowing everyone to move on until the August report is due. We realize we're going into the weekend, so will wait for an answer early next week. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-12 06:50:16 UTC | #28 All bank statements and statements from Coinbase are provided to SES for full reconciliation of our transactions. It is not unusual for US T-bills come to maturity just before month-end and for funds to be redeployed at the beginning of the following month. We are working together with other teams on a new, more cohesive and robust reporting structure. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-14 17:40:51 UTC | #29 [quote="Wrongcomma, post:28, topic:17923"] All bank statements and statements from Coinbase are provided to SES for full reconciliation of our transactions. [/quote] SES has not announced they have fully reconciled these transactions. [Their last communication on the topic is here](http://forum.makerdao.com/t/clydesdale-quarterly-return-of-surplus-fund/21291/8?u=gfxlabs). We expect they will make a public statement and postmortem when they have completed their review. Given these are financial statements, we understand if they may wish to take their time before making a public statement with their name on it. [quote="Wrongcomma, post:28, topic:17923"] It is not unusual for US T-bills come to maturity just before month-end and for funds to be redeployed at the beginning of the following month. [/quote] This is not what your reports show. Your [report here](http://forum.makerdao.com/t/clydesdale-vault-hq/17923/16?u=gfxlabs) states there was $77,380,206.16 in the bank accounts on June 30. [Your most recent](http://forum.makerdao.com/t/clydesdale-vault-hq/17923/20?u=gfxlabs) report provides a maturity schedule and purchase dates for tbills between June 30 and July 31. No tbill purchases of ~$62.5m were made until July 11, leaving ~$14.8m in the bank account. A tbill tranche of $62.5m matured on July 13. There were no more tbill purchases until July 31 (for $76.9m) according to the report. **This implies the ~$77m was idle for 27 days out of the month of July,** and ~$14m of that was idle the entire month. The foregone interest income is more than $300,000, depending upon what exact interest rate you choose to use, but surely above 5%. The report provided this week is an improvement, **but it still is incomplete with regard to cash balances**. Cash balances for JAT1 and JAT2 are presumably not $0, since the trusts must pay various service providers. Of lesser importance, expenses are not broken down. It would also be helpful to know how the expenses for July compare to other months. [As pointed out by Steakhouse here](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/real-world-asset-report-2023-06/21461/5), **Monetalis has revised down the value of the JAT1 + JAT2 portfolio on June 30 by multiple millions of dollars** with the most recent report. No explanation has been provided yet, nor was attention called to this fact in the most recent report. At this point, it's easier for everyone to just see the statements. **There's no particular reason not to provide the full statements for at least the most recent reporting period, since there is very little sensitive information in those statements.** Withholding them likely does more harm than good because it requires a game of "telephone" when asking simple questions like how much cash was in the accounts on June 30 or July 31. Open sourcing the documents with some light redaction will save Monetalis and everyone else a lot of time, and allow the focus to be on confirming the current health of the trusts rather than endless questions about conflicting data. @Aligned_Delegates who should carefully review this thread in full, as well as Steakhouse's RWA report threads. You may also find [this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e2yqI3XOnw9UgC7I2gVHqgnX33U8qULh3mCDqsbT7x8/edit#gid=0) helpful, which is sourced from [the proposal](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/poll-request-for-mip65-surplus-return-to-sb/20106) used to make a payment for Q1. Note this is several million dollars lower than Steakhouse estimated based on the data available to them at the time. Note also that the reported NAV for Clydesdale was only current at March 8, so no public reports were made for the complete quarter that we could locate on the forum. If anything this underscores the value of more transparency of the Clydesdale accounts, since Steakhouse's projections are relied upon for spending initiatives. We request that Monetalis make the account statements public (with the appropriate redactions of sensitive information, of which there is anticipated to be very little). There is little proprietary information to protect, so there is no reason obvious reason to disallow MakerDAO viewing the original documents. ------------------------- ecosystem-team | 2023-08-14 17:19:39 UTC | #30 SES has reconciled the underlying accounts using statements provided by Monetalis and verifies this report. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-14 17:49:26 UTC | #31 [quote="ecosystem-team, post:30, topic:17923"] SES has reconciled the underlying accounts using statements [/quote] Can you please verify the cash balances for the June 30th and July 31st reporting dates? Those are not provided in the most recent report, and are needed to for the full attestation. Presumably there are no other assets besides cash. ------------------------- Acuarela | 2023-08-16 03:33:06 UTC | #32 Strongly agree with the above points, a proper reconciliation must be done. I look forward to this more "cohesive and robust reporting structure". Considering that the DAO is paying for the service, copy/paste errors and failure to reconcile with publicly available metrics just do not inspire confidence when managing hundreds of millions of dollars. More is better. We need to move in a direction where publishing of account statements is the norm. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-18 18:53:48 UTC | #33 [quote="ecosystem-team, post:30, topic:17923"] SES has reconciled the underlying accounts using statements [/quote] Gentle reminder the community still needs confirmation of the cash balances for at least the beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-26 07:36:48 UTC | #34 A total of USDC **7,459,643.51** was paid today to the Surplus buffer: - From the sale of 286,303 IBTA and 52,000 IB01: **6,694,993.55** - From the maturity of US T-Bills on 17/08/2023: **764,649.96** The Trustee has chosen to hold back $300,000 to pay for various administrative invoices. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-27 07:38:51 UTC | #35 VIRIDIAN REALLOCATION SIGNAL Dear Trustee, Based on the Reallocation process for Clydesdale/MIP65 presented [Here](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/operationalizing-the-allocatordao-reallocation-process-for-clydesdale-mip65/20961) and our recent month-end reconciliation we determine, that as of Aug 15th: |Value of Trust Asset|1,139M| | --- | --- | |Viridian Max DC|940M| |Viridian DC State|Return to Vault and Liquidation Request| |Liquidation Request|249M| Please make adjustments accordingly. ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2023-08-27 08:09:00 UTC | #36 As part of this liquidation request process 125M have been processed and returned to the Vault. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-27 13:00:48 UTC | #37 Thank you for reporting on the successful repayment of 150m. It looks like the trustee is able to use a flow of funds contrary to what's specified in the DAO resolutions for [quarterly return](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmaGTVioBsCPfNoz9rbW7LU6YuzfgqHDZd92Hny5ACfL3p) of surplus and the [reallocation](https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmahKaWHBFrhHwtkiVKAMJWjPq7UeEkkNYpM54oBjY4kpp?_gl=1*1chtas0*_ga*MmEzMGU4N2EtNWZhZS00ODYwLTk4NjgtNGE4ZmM5ZGUzOWVj*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY3OTYxMTkzMC4yLjEuMTY3OTYxMTk2My4yNy4wLjA.). Both require funds to flow [through this wallet](https://etherscan.io/address/0xd310DBF2633A16Ae24BC460f3d498DCb65eD5a19), which was indeed used in the Q1 return of surplus from JAT1. For example, how did the trustee progress past in the instructions this step without either complying with it or seeking authorization from MakerDAO: `d. Upon receipt the Trustee director must confirm the deposit of USD on CB Trade Account via screen print on ClydesdaleC, and the Trustee director and Trust Administrator must exchange the full amount to USDC and deposit to USDC Wallet Out (0xd310DBF2633A16Ae24BC460f3d498DCb65eD5a19) - also confirmed via screenprints on Clydesdale C.` Do we know why the trustee is using a different route? And how they are able to circumvent the instructions, without seeking approval from the DAO? ------------------------- Synchrotron | 2023-08-27 18:40:12 UTC | #38 Took a quick glance. I believe you're confusing the CB and Clydesdale wallets. 0x94 is the [Monetalis vault operator wallet](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/rwa007-mip65-monetalis-clydesdale-ces-domain-team-assessment/17787/4). ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-27 20:00:59 UTC | #39 [quote="Synchrotron, post:38, topic:17923"] I believe you’re confusing the CB and Clydesdale wallets. [/quote] We recommend reading the instructions linked earlier, which specify the flow of funds through the "USDC Wallet Out", which is 0xd310...5a19. In this case, the funds arrived safely, so the question is more how the process broke down such that $125 million could be sent via alternative means by the trustee, and that it was then subsequently not realized until now since the return process for several different repayment flows require routing through a specific address, and then share a screenprint in MIP65C and/or Clydesdale C as documentation. When a trust structure has $1 billion in assets, you want to understand why it behaved unexpectedly, and whether that is a structural issue, and if so, how to better instruct the trustee. Why is this important when the funds arrived safely? Mostly out of an abundance of caution, since the funds appear to have come from a Coinbase Prime hot wallet. The trustee being able to move $125 million in a manner that directly contradicts the authorized method should raise questions of procedure: 1) How did the trustee not transfer assets to the address specified? 2) How did the required screenprint documentation not flag that $125 million did not go to the authorized wallet? 3) If it was recognized and not a mistake, how was the trustee made comfortable that it could circumvent direct instructions in the case of both the recent quarterly return of ETF surplus from JAT1 and the return of idle cash from JAT2? Depending upon the answers to those questions, there may be simple improvements that can be implemented. If the trustee cannot reliably control or direct funds to that address, for instance, it might be advisable to provide multiple approved routes for the funds to move, or restrict it by which counterparty (Coinbase) it moves through rather than a specific address. If the issue was that the trustee was not careful about what wallet assets were directed towards, then building in extra checks before approving a transaction could limit the possibility of future funds moving in unexpected ways. It mostly depends upon the why and how the trustee acted this way and whether the existing documentation process failed or was not followed. ------------------------- Synchrotron | 2023-08-28 03:18:21 UTC | #40 [quote="GFXlabs, post:39, topic:17923"] When a trust structure has $1 billion in assets, you want to understand why it behaved unexpectedly, and whether that is a structural issue, and if so, how to better instruct the trustee. [/quote] Agreed & noted. [quote="GFXlabs, post:39, topic:17923"] Depending upon the answers to those questions, there may be simple improvements that can be implemented. [/quote] This could be a major learning curve for the parties involved. Either there's inexperience in using the blockchain by the entities involved or the learning curve needs repeatable steps in order to reach a level of mastery. As far as I can tell Maker is the only blockchain protocol smart enough to innovate through a trust structure. The parties involved are out on the frontier, exploring, helping build the wealth of the commons. I believe Maker through RWAs can create an abundance of wealth and hopefully these trust structures will disrupt the norm. ------------------------- Eumenes | 2023-08-28 22:54:08 UTC | #41 If this is true, it should be quite concerning. A trustee is supposed to follow the transaction documents and instructions exactly. Otherwise, what safety does the trustee provide to Maker? Maker should fix these flawed structures quickly or perhaps just exit all RWAs as Maker may not be capable of executing RWAs in a competent manner. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-08-31 08:31:23 UTC | #42 VIRIDIAN REALLOCATION SIGNAL Dear Trustee, Based on the Reallocation process for Clydesdale/MIP65 presented [Here](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/operationalizing-the-allocatordao-reallocation-process-for-clydesdale-mip65/20961) and our recent month-end reconciliation we determine, that as of Aug 31st: |Value of Trust Asset|1,014M| | --- | --- | |Viridian Max DC|1,053M| |Viridian DC State|Roll-over Ladder| |Roll-over Ladder|62.5M| |Surplus payment (minus any expenses)|840,900| Please make adjustments accordingly. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-08-31 11:33:35 UTC | #43 You just posted one of these from 4 days ago. Was that instruction ever completed? ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-09-11 20:14:23 UTC | #44 Dear Trustee, Based on the Reallocation process for Clydesdale/MIP65 presented [Here](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/operationalizing-the-allocatordao-reallocation-process-for-clydesdale-mip65/20961) and our recent mid-month reconciliation we determine, that as of Sept 11th: |Value of Trust Asset|1,014M| | --- | --- | |Viridian Max DC|1,211M| |Viridian DC State| Roll-over Ladder and Vault Draw Request| |Roll-over Ladder| 62.5M (On Sept 14th)| |Surplus payment (minus any expenses)| 852,894 (On Sept 14th)| |Increase vault Draw| 147M| Please make adjustments accordingly. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-09-16 08:30:46 UTC | #45 Dear all, Please find below the link to the JAT1 and JAT2 report for the month of Aug. The report was formulated by aggregating, on a daily basis, all transactions from all bank and on/off ramp accounts. In order to increase transparency, the resulting daily ledger was shared with BA Analytics and Steakhouse. In addition to this, we have provided Viridian with read-only access to all of our bank accounts. A summary view of our report and asset registry can be accessed here: [Clydesdale Dashboard](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p6AXikT0cZebuJt_ANwjXmZglw6kpQZbxtqtlgUQDrE/edit#gid=0) **Note:** When calculating the portfolio value, different prices, with differing levels of precision can be found for the same products. For example, when valuing the asset, Sygnum Bank uses an intra-day price instead of the close price, which could produce different results when trying to re-calculate the portfolio value. For this reason, to maintain consistency, our figures align to the reported figures presented by Sygnum Bank. However, for transparency, the ETF Ledger also includes valuations using the close price of the asset for that day. We will continue to work with the community to further optimise our reporting. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-09-16 14:56:30 UTC | #46 Thank you for this update! This looks like significant progress. ![Screen Shot 2023-09-16 at 10.19.23 AM|690x434](upload://kVWk1vohFlmUJosV9ME5zRVu6bf.jpeg) Is there somewhere to see how Gross Stability Fees are calculated? We tried adding the profits listed for both ETFs on JAT1 on August 31 plus the yield-to-date of all tbills listed in JAT2 through July 31 and come up with a different number for Gross Stability Fees. We find the JAT1 total profits at 15,418,601.96 and JAT2 total profits at 7,934,514.65 from the linked dashboard, which is 23,353,116.61. Using the Sygnum numbers in green to the right, the total is modestly different at 23,425,695.49. Are we misinterpreting the JAT1 sheet, perhaps? These two cells represent yield-to-date on the ETFs? The alternative numbers by Sygnum are to the right. ![Screen Shot 2023-09-16 at 10.33.37 AM|690x137](upload://fjZyz0pj0F1VOXLWuu6reqJXrjJ.jpeg) ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-09-18 09:41:31 UTC | #47 The Net Stability fee in this template is calculated as follows: (Surplus paid to date + ETF accrued yield)-Expenses paid to date. What we were trying to do here was to include the total amount paid to date in the Surplus buffer, plus the yield that could be realised on that day. Hence the inclusion of the ETFs yield at Aug 31st valuation. We purposely did not include the accrued yield to date of the US T-Bills, which as of Aug 31st was $4.599m, because the US T-bills that had accrued this yield had not reached maturity and therefore is not a yield that could be realised immediately. But there are many different ways we could have calculated this. We could have, for example: * Included the T-Bills yield to date * Discount the ETF yield to date by the expected transaction costs and stamp duty * Provided the month on month yield gain rather than the full amount The point is that there is an urgent need for a well-defined, standardised Data Dictionary that can be adopted across Maker to improve reporting and increase clarity for those stakeholders that are interested in analysing results. We advocate that all future reports should be produced by independent CPAs that receive data directly from the underlying bank, and that produce monthly reports that adhere to IFRS standards. This is proposed in the absence of a standardised Maker Data Dictionary. The rules of IFRS reporting will provide the necessary standard of reporting, removing any ambiguity on the figures presented. Monetalis is taking steps to enable this and evaluating options. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-09-18 10:27:04 UTC | #48 [quote="Wrongcomma, post:47, topic:17923"] The Net Stability fee in this template is calculated as follows: (Surplus paid to date + ETF accrued yield)-Expenses paid to date. [/quote] That makes sense, but Surplus Paid To Date + ETF Accrued Yield does not appear to match the 25,974,078.23? Both calculations of this, as noted above, appear to be several million off of the number in the dashboard. ![Screen Shot 2023-09-18 at 6.20.07 AM|690x130](upload://yOI4opblQzMnjqaH4PKYbhBAHAc.png) [quote="Wrongcomma, post:47, topic:17923"] We purposely did not include the accrued yield to date of the US T-Bills, which as of Aug 31st was $4.599m, because the US T-bills that had accrued this yield had not reached maturity and therefore is not a yield that could be realised immediately. [/quote] Inclusion of this amount would not result in the $25.97m number on the dashboard. What are we doing wrong to be unable to arrive at the $25,974,078.23? This should be cells AA327 and AB327 from the first sheet + sum of column O in the second sheet? If that's not correct, can you show us how this number was derived? [quote="Wrongcomma, post:47, topic:17923"] We advocate that all future reports should be produced by independent CPAs that receive data directly from the underlying bank [/quote] This seems like it could be a good suggestion. ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-09-18 13:02:34 UTC | #49 The report is as of 31/08 * Surplus paid to date: 10,482,897.39 as per [Makerburn](https://makerburn.com/#/collateral/RWA007-A) * Yield to date As of 31/08: 12,073,128.31 + 3,418,052.53 = 15,491,180.84 (as per asset registry published) * 10,482,897.3 ( Surplus paid to date) + 15,491,180.84 (ETF Yield to date as of 31/08) = **25,974,078.23 (Gross Stability fee)** ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-09-18 14:00:33 UTC | #50 [quote="Wrongcomma, post:49, topic:17923"] 15,491,180.84 (ETF Yield to date as of 31/08) [/quote] Doesn't this number already include most of the 10,482,897.39 repaid (the ~$7.5m from JAT1)? On the dashboard, the sale of the Q2 quarterly distribution did not result in a drop in value of the ~$6.7m that would then be repaid + held back for expenses. ![Screen Shot 2023-09-18 at 9.43.25 AM|690x61](upload://10umfU5MvAgcENqyPtSWDTU9sBf.png) Same thing for the Q1 distribution ![Screen Shot 2023-09-18 at 9.50.29 AM|690x49](upload://nmI14LPa44cjyWjQGSdPCSqWnap.png) If profits are not deducted when sales are made, then the JAT1 Makerburn amount is already accounted for (notwithstanding expenses if some portion of the sales proceeds went to expenses). Note that the dashboard *does* appear to show reduction in profits when a sale is made by the trustee for expenses: ![Screen Shot 2023-09-18 at 9.52.19 AM|690x67](upload://pjvZpwPDjvDIOj2hr4nqrGRERwb.png) ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-09-18 14:42:49 UTC | #51 No it doesn't. The yield presented is calculated against the underlying value of the asset, which in the example presented is diminishing. We can very easily calculate the yield against the original invested amount, we would be happy to do so. This stresses, once more, the case for a commonly agreed Data Dictionary of standardised definitions. It is vitally important that this work on common definitions is started sooner rather than later. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-09-18 15:34:24 UTC | #52 Bear with us and let's walk through the most recent distribution. We're still confused. ![Screen Shot 2023-09-18 at 9.43.25 AM|690x61](upload://10umfU5MvAgcENqyPtSWDTU9sBf.png) On August 15, 2023, 52,000 IB01 and 286,303 IBTA shares were sold. That sale generated: `(52,000 * 106.02) + (286,303 * 5.2448)` Simplified: `5,513,040 + 1,501,601.97` for cash of `7,014,641.97` On August 25,2023, `6,694,993.55` [was returned by JAT1 as USDC](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x97d50055883300787a0f01608731ded017adb26b1d22c1b0033a722bff31214f). The remainder was held back for expenses. [quote="Wrongcomma, post:34, topic:17923"] The Trustee has chosen to hold back $300,000 to pay for various administrative invoices. [/quote] Notice that in the dashboard, the "Profit" column does not appear to reflect *either* the ~$300k expenses, nor the ~$6.7m returned to Maker. The $6.7m returned to the protocol *is still included in the running total in the "Profit" column*. So when the "Gross Stability Fee" is calculated by this method [quote="Wrongcomma, post:49, topic:17923"] 10,482,897.3 ( Surplus paid to date) + 15,491,180.84 (ETF Yield to date as of 31/08) = **25,974,078.23 (Gross Stability fee)** [/quote] we appear to have an error. The $6.7m paid out to Maker [in the txn cited above](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x97d50055883300787a0f01608731ded017adb26b1d22c1b0033a722bff31214f) is being counted *both* in the "Surplus Paid To Date" *and* in the "ETF Yield To Date". The result being the "Gross Stability Fee" is an overstatement, since it counts the same dollars twice. Less material, but the expenses held back from the August 15 sale are also not reflected in the running total. Have we made a mistake in the above, or misunderstood something in the dashboard or how the stability fee number was derived? ------------------------- Wrongcomma | 2023-09-18 16:36:35 UTC | #53 The table you are referring to is simply an asset registry, showing the current holding, the movements in terms of buy/sale of the assets as well as its market value. Expenses are not reflected in the Asset registry but duly accounted for in the ledger and reflected in the P&L. The profit column you are referring to on Aug 31st is calculated against 3,324,453 and 28,680,746 shares, from which the shares sold had already been deducted. We have simply calculated the profit made on the value of the outstanding portfolio (post sale) as of Aug 31st using the valuation price adopted by Sygnum Bank on that day. ------------------------- GFXlabs | 2023-09-18 19:23:09 UTC | #54 [quote="Wrongcomma, post:53, topic:17923"] The table you are referring to is simply an asset registry, showing the current holding, the movements in terms of buy/sale of the assets as well as its market value. [/quote] Thank you, this clarifies a lot. Also, it appears deductions were made in the prior example between August 14 and 15, while we were looking for a change between August 15 and 16. In addition, the full price of the sold shares is being deducted from the principal column rather than the cost basis of the lot sold, which lead to numbers presenting a pattern we weren't expecting, as well. We expected the changes to be reflected in the "Profits" column rather than the "Invested" column, since these distributions were made as yield and not for repaying the vault. We think we now understand what is being reported, and thank Alessio for his patience above. (For those reading the whole thread and wanting to follow the discussion here) ------------------------- Allan_Pedersen | 2023-09-25 13:24:27 UTC | #55 In respect of the [proposal to revise asset allocation of JAT1 and JAT2](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/proposal-to-revise-asset-allocation-of-jat1-and-jat2/21718?u=0x3phemeralsoul) the following Trustee instruction set would be required [instruction](https://pin.ski/46gYmjd) [QmZ94FG8YXK4seyBHBi2FfTfW5URtBqbCb7JZAB1HGkTNF](https://amaranth-secondary-stingray-939.mypinata.cloud/ipfs/QmZ94FG8YXK4seyBHBi2FfTfW5URtBqbCb7JZAB1HGkTNF?preview=1&_gl=1*1ose1iw*_ga*NTU2NDcwNTUxLjE2OTQ4NDc4MjE.*_ga_5RMPXG14TE*MTY5NTE5MTU1MS4yLjEuMTY5NTE5MTU1NS41Ni4wLjA.) -------------------------