[TEMP CHECK] Market Maker (MM) Oversight Committee for 100k SSV tokens Loan

Proposals
1

Authors: Yuting & LinkoPlus (Joint Proposal)

This post is a Temperature Check to gather community feedback on forming a MM Oversight Committee. We invite all $SSV holders to share questions, suggestions, or concerns to help refine the proposal.

Summary:

We propose creating an independent Market Maker (MM) Oversight Committee under the SSV DAO to monitor the market-making program launched through DIP-20, which allocated 100,000 SSV to two professional MMs, Selini Capital and Keyrock.

This initiative aims to bring greater transparency and accountability to the DAO’s liquidity efforts, ensuring that the SSV loan is used effectively to strengthen token liquidity, stabilize prices, and reduce trading friction.

The SSV token is the backbone of the SSV Network and will play a central role in the upcoming SSV 2.0 bApps chain, serving as staking collateral, gas for transactions, validator rewards, and governance.

Sustaining healthy and stable liquidity is critical to support these roles. The MM Oversight Committee will help protect the token’s long-term utility and ensure the DAO’s capital is working in service of the network’s growth.

SSV token contract:

0x9d65ff81a3c488d585bbfb0bfe3c7707c7917f54

Table of Contents

Click to expand full Table of Contents

Background & Motivation

Proposal Overview
Value to the DAO

Committee Structure
Size & Roles
Workload & Duration
Communication
Independence

Monitoring Scope & Key KPIs
Liquidity Depth
Bid-Ask Spreads
Trading Volume & MM Share
Price Slippage
Market Resilience & Uptime
Loan & Inventory Tracking

Data Sources

Reporting

Accountability & Red Flags
Thresholds & Red Flags
Response Process
Escalation
Transparency
Committee Accountability

Compensation & Budget
Member Stipend
Data & Tooling Budget
Admin Support
Funding Model

Conclusion

Why We’re Qualified

Next Steps
Discussion & Feedback (2 weeks)
Formal DIP Draft
Snapshot Vote
Committee Launch
Ongoing Operations
Final Note

Background & Motivation

In mid-2024, the DAO approved [DIP-20], minting 100,000 SSV (~$3M at the time) to support token liquidity via professional market makers. The SSV Foundation engaged Selini Capital and Keyrock for a 12–18 month term, with each receiving a loan of SSV tokens to deploy across exchanges, tasked with maintaining deep order books, tight spreads, and market stability. Any unused SSV (or equivalent USDC) must be returned to the DAO treasury at the end of the term.

While the program was supported as a strategic step for ecosystem health, community members have raised concerns about vague, high-level MM reporting and the lack of concrete metrics like depth, spread, volume, or performance targets. This has made it difficult to assess whether the program is delivering value or responding effectively during events like SSV’s recent price swings.

Additionally, while this is not an accusation against the current market makers, oversight should include monitoring for common red flags such as wash trading, spoofing, and other manipulative behaviors that can distort volume, mislead the community, and harm the DAO’s credibility. These practices are typically prohibited in MM agreements and, if undetected, could undermine the DAO’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and responsible liquidity management.

To address this, we propose an independent oversight committee to monitor MM performance and the $SSV market environment in general to ensure transparency, and provide the DAO with the ability to take corrective actions. Other leading DAOs, such as Arbitrum and Cardano, have adopted similar governance best practices. This initiative brings that maturity to SSV DAO, protecting the treasury’s investment, building trust with investors, and ensuring accountability in how liquidity is managed.

Proposal Overview

The Market Maker Oversight Committee will be an independent, DAO-mandated body responsible for monitoring the performance of the DIP-20 market-making program and any similar future efforts. Its role includes tracking key metrics like order book depth, spreads, volume, and slippage, benchmarking them against DAO-defined targets, and publishing monthly performance reports. It will also serve as a liaison between the DAO, market makers, and the Foundation to surface questions and ensure accountability.

Currently, MMs self-report without third-party verification, leaving the DAO in the dark on how the 100k SSV loan is actually used. This committee closes that gap, providing independent oversight, early detection of issues, and actionable insights to optimize the program. It’s not about policing, but collaborating like a board overseeing performance to protect capital and improve results.

Value to the DAO:

  • Transparency: Clear, data-backed reports build community trust.
  • Decision Support: Enables informed choices about extending or adjusting MM deals.
  • Risk Management: Flags issues early before they escalate.
  • Capital Efficiency: Ensures the loan delivers strong liquidity returns.
  • Governance Maturity: Aligns SSV DAO with best practices from peers like Arbitrum and Cardano

In short, this committee turns the MM program into a structured, measurable, and transparent collaboration, safeguarding DAO resources and advancing SSV Network market health.

Committee Structure

Size & Roles:

The committee will start with 2 members (Yuting & LinkoPlus) and may expand to 3–4 as needed. A small initial team allows for fast setup, with future members bringing added technical, financial, or risk expertise. Yuting will lead on technical/data automation, while LinkoPlus will focus on financial analysis. Both will serve as link leads to ensure coordination and transparency between the committee, the Foundation and the DAO.

Workload & Duration:

Each member will contribute ~ 24 hours/month for data collection, analysis, reporting, meetings and MM coordination. Workload may vary monthly and be distributed across members over time. The committee is expected to operate long-term, with periodic reviews to reassess structure and scope.

Communication:

The committee will collaborate with the Foundation and MMs for data access and clarity while maintaining independence. Regular check-ins with the Foundation and direct engagement with Selini and Keyrock (via forum/Discord) will ensure transparency and aligned expectations.

Independence:

Members will not be affiliated with the Foundation or MMs and will act solely in the SSV DAO’s interest. Any conflicts of interest will be disclosed. $SSV token holders retain full authority to replace MM Oversight Committee members through DAO governance. This independence is essential for credibility and accountability.

Monitoring Scope & Key KPIs

The committee will track key metrics to evaluate the health of SSV token markets and ensure effective use of the 100k SSV loan.

1. Liquidity Depth

Monitors $SSV liquidity within ±1–2% of the mid-price (i.e., the average of the best bid and ask prices) across major exchanges (e.g., Binance, OKX, Bybit) to assess the market’s ability to handle large trades. Monthly reports will include average depth metrics and flag any instances where liquidity falls below defined thresholds.

2. Bid-Ask Spreads

Measures trading efficiency via average spread (in bps) per exchange. Reports will benchmark monthly changes and alert if spreads widen beyond acceptable levels.

3. Trading Volume & MM Share

Assesses how much SSV trading is driven by MMs versus organic volume. Volume data (via APIs and MM self-reporting) will help gauge MM activity and its market impact.

4. Price Slippage

Simulated trade tests (e.g., $10k–$50k) will reveal real-world trading friction. Lower slippage = healthier liquidity. These results will be shared in reports to illustrate user-facing impacts.

5. Market Resilience & Uptime

Monitors uptime of MM quoting bots and response during volatile events. Example: how quickly spreads/depth recover after a ±20% move. Reports will document such events.

6. Loan & Inventory Tracking

Ensures loaned SSV is safeguarded and properly managed. Committee will monitor MM addresses, confirm loan balance stability, and verify return of funds (SSV or USDC) at term end.

Data Sources

We’ll use exchange APIs (e.g., Binance, CoinGecko) and institutional-grade data providers like Kaiko or Amberdata to gather comprehensive market metrics. MMs may also share internal data under NDA, which we’ll compare against independent sources to validate accuracy and support deeper analysis.

Reporting

Monthly reports will present KPIs with clear visuals (e.g., “Target vs Actual vs Last Month”), published on the SSV governance forum. A shared dashboard or spreadsheet may also offer real-time views. The committee will be available to explain results and answer questions via forum or community calls ensuring transparency and accessibility for all DAO members.

Accountability & Red Flags

The Oversight Committee will define clear performance thresholds and actions to uphold accountability. If market makers underperform or violate terms, the committee will act swiftly and transparently.

Thresholds & Red Flags:

Early on, the committee will set quantitative thresholds for key KPIs (e.g., spread >20 bps, depth < $100k, uptime < 95%, unexplained SSV transfers). Breaches or violations will trigger a red flag, logged and shared with the DAO. These targets may evolve as more data becomes available.

Response Process:

When flagged, the committee will first engage the MM (and Foundation if needed) to investigate the issue and seek resolution. The MM will be asked to explain the cause, propose fixes, and commit to a timeline. If resolved, this will be noted in the next report.

Escalation:

If issues persist, the committee may issue a formal Warning, propose DAO governance action (e.g., contract termination, early repayment), or if urgent, alert the Foundation and multi-sig holders for emergency intervention (e.g., freezing funds).

Transparency:

All red flags, discussions, and decisions will be documented and shared on the forum. Oversight is continuous, not one-off, and follow-ups will confirm that fixes were applied.

Committee Accountability:

The committee itself remains accountable to the DAO. Token holders can replace members, dissolve the group, or adjust its mandate via governance. We commit to transparency, regular reporting, and community feedback. This Temp Check is the first step in that process.

Bottom Line:

This structure ensures MMs are held to clear standards and gives the DAO real tools to protect its liquidity investment, just like oversight boards in traditional finance.

Compensation & Budget

To operate effectively, the committee requires a monthly budget for member stipends and data tools.

Member Stipend

Each committee member will receive $1,500/month in SSV (calculated using a 30-day trailing average), aligned with the compensation rates of both the Grants Committee and the Verified Operator Committee. This rate reflects the part-time nature of the role and is a modest investment in oversight for a ~$3M liquidity program, critical for ensuring transparency, accountability, and responsible treasury management within a ~$60M token ecosystem.

Data & Tooling Budget

We request up to [TO BE CONFIRMED]/month for subscriptions to analytics tools (e.g., Kaiko, Amberdata, APIs, dashboards), which are essential for aggregating data across all DEXs and CEXs and for all trading pairs involving SSV.

Admin Support

No additional admin budget is needed. DAO tools (Discourse, Snapshot) will be used for coordination. Any future legal or audit needs will be requested separately.

Funding Model

Funds can be disbursed via the DAO multi-sig monthly. All transactions will be documented in monthly reports. Any unused funds will be returned if the committee ends.

Conclusion

This budget is minimal relative to its impact. Even small improvements in liquidity outcomes (e.g., tighter spreads) could save the SSV DAO far more than the cost. It’s a cost-effective way to strengthen oversight, bring independent transparency to the SSV market environment, ensure accountability in the DAO’s MM program, and create the kind of market structure that attracts institutional investors and accelerates adoption of SSV 2.0.

Why We’re Qualified

This proposal is authored by Yuting and LinkoPlus, who will serve as the committee’s initial members. Our combined skills in data, engineering, finance, and governance position us well to launch and lead this initiative.

Yuting is a software engineer with a strong background in automation, data analysis, and on-chain tooling. As the Chinese SSV Diver ambassador, he’s contributed technically to the community, building data pipelines, parsing exchange APIs, and pushing for more transparent MM reporting.

LinkoPlus has a university background in finance and economics, with professional experience at a financial institution. As an SSV Ambassador and active SSV operator with Lido and Ether Fi protocols, he’s contributed to community strategy, created guides, and helped simplify SSV 2.0 for a general audience.

Together, we offer a balanced team, technical and strategic, quantitative and qualitative with a proven track record in the SSV ecosystem. We’re already aligned with the DAO’s long-term goals and operate in complementary time zones (Asia and North America) for around-the-clock coverage.

While this committee is new, our collaboration and community history reflect our commitment. We’re prepared to learn, adapt, and engage transparently to earn the DAO’s trust and deliver value from day one.

Next Steps

Discussion & Feedback (2 weeks):

We’ll actively respond on the forum, adjusting scope, KPIs, structure, or budget based on input. Major changes will be transparently summarized.

Formal DIP Draft:

If there’s broad support, with the help of the SSV Foundation Secretary Services (FSS) we’ll draft a formal DAO Improvement Proposal, coordinating with the Foundation as needed to ensure compatibility with Snapshot voting and any relevant MM agreements.

Snapshot Vote:

The finalized DIP will be submitted for an on-chain vote. If approved, the committee will be officially authorized and funded.

Committee Launch:

We’ll set up the necessary infrastructure (e.g., data tools, Discord/forum comms) and begin oversight immediately. The first report will be delivered within a month of approval.

Ongoing Operations:

A 3-month checkpoint will allow the DAO to review progress and make adjustments. The committee will continue as long as the MM program runs, or pivot if the DAO changes direction.

Final Note:

If you support this proposal, please signal it with a reply or like. If you have feedback or concerns, share them so we can refine the idea. With positive sentiment, we’ll work with the Foundation to draft the final DIP and move to a vote. We’re excited to contribute to stronger oversight for SSV DAO and appreciate your time and input.

This is a community-driven effort, we’re simply initiating it. If support is lacking, we’ll respect that. If supported, we’re committed to building an effective and transparent oversight process for the DAO.

5 Likes
2

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to contribute to this discussion. It’s clear that the community values transparency, accountability, and responsible management of SSV Network resources — values that the SSV Foundation shares deeply.

We’d like to offer some context from the Foundation’s side and propose a balanced path forward.

:pushpin: Foundation Role & Oversight

This market maker token loan initiative is being carried out under the SSV Foundation’s operational mandate, with the Foundation acting on behalf of the DAO. Our role is to implement DAO-approved strategies, engage professional partners, and help guide the network’s growth with long-term alignment in mind.

The market makers selected are top-tier, regulated firms, chosen for their strong compliance standards and professional conduct. Their involvement is a deliberate step to ensure responsible, effective liquidity provisioning and long-term market health.

:balance_scale: On Transparency & Operational Balance

While we fully support transparency, it’s important to recognize that:

Over-disclosure or making all market maker operations public can limit our ability to work with high-quality partners. These firms often require confidentiality around strategies and positioning, and breaching this could undermine both engagement and market stability.

Creating an additional oversight committee may unintentionally duplicate the Foundation’s responsibilities and introduce operational friction.

Instead, we propose a more open, practical model that supports both community trust and professional execution.

:white_check_mark: Proposed Path Forward

To enhance visibility and engagement without compromising effectiveness, we suggest:

Weekly Sync Participation
Invite qualified community contributors to participate in the Foundation’s weekly syncs with market makers (as observers or rotating members). This ensures direct visibility into ongoing work.

Quarterly Community Calls
Host open, quarterly calls with market makers to share performance insights, discuss progress, and answer questions from the broader DAO.

These initiatives provide consistent access and transparency, while preserving the operational integrity needed to maintain healthy SSV markets.

:seedling: Looking Ahead

We also want to highlight that the next market maker selection process will begin in the coming months. This will be an excellent opportunity to formally involve core contributors in evaluating options, setting expectations, and aligning the next phase of liquidity support with community values.

:light_bulb: Contributor Involvement & Compensation

As outlined in DIP-32, DAO contributors supporting these initiatives may be eligible for compensation, creating a sustainable framework for deeper involvement over time.

We believe this approach maintains a strong balance between openness, professionalism, and execution — and we’re excited to work together with the community as we grow the SSV ecosystem responsibly and transparently.

Looking forward to your feedback and continued collaboration!

1 Like
3

Thank you, Elad. I really want to express my gratitude to you for taking the time to respond to our Temp Check, it means a lot. After your reply, Yuting and I discussed it together.

We would like you to know that we previously tried to get more clarity on the Selini Report by asking questions in the SSV forum, but we didn’t receive any response. That experience led us to propose the idea of an independent Market Maker (MM) Oversight Committee. Additionally, the MM meeting we had the chance to join did not give us full confidence.

Forum link where we asked Selini questions but didn’t receive a response:

We understand that over-disclosing MM activities can make it harder to work with top-tier partners, who often require confidentiality around their strategies and positioning. That’s why we’re proposing a neutral, third-party oversight committee that collects data from platforms like Kaiko and Amberdata and publishes clear monthly reports for the SSV community.

About the Weekly Sync Participation, it’s a great step toward transparency. That said, to fairly evaluate MM performance, I believe we need independent data, not just the MM’s own reporting. Understanding market maker behavior takes time, tools and preparation. A dedicated committee would add an essential layer of independence, continuity, and verification, complementing weekly syncs.

It’s great to hear that core contributors will be involved in setting expectations and aligning the next phase of liquidity support with community values. However, for contributors to offer meaningful insights, they need a strong understanding of market dynamics and access to advanced tools for analyzing MM behavior and the $SSV market environment in general.

In my view, the real question is if the SSV Network truly needs an independent third party to oversee the MMs selected by the Foundation, or if we can place full trust in their good faith and efficiency. I believe such a committee would not only help the community assess the performance of market makers, but also monitor for signs of broader market manipulation, whether from MMs, traders, or other participants in the SSV market.

While I recognize that the selected MMs are top-tier, regulated firms with strong compliance reputations, history has repeatedly shown that even well-respected institutions can be involved in serious scandals and misconduct.

It’s also important to note that potential manipulation in the SSV market might not come from MMs alone, it could just as easily stem from traders or investors. This makes the case even stronger for neutral, data-driven oversight to provide the community with a clear picture of market dynamics.

If this Temperature Check doesn’t get strong support, I’m happy to drop the idea. But I do believe it’s worth exploring. One option is to launch the committee with a 3-month trial. During that time, we’d deploy data tools to assess MM activity and the overall $SSV market landscape. If the data shows no issues and confirms the MMs are performing well, we sunset the committee.

As a personal initiative in my role as an active SSV participant, I’ve already reached out to Kaiko to request a free test drive of their platform.

3 Likes
4

Thank you again for the thoughtful reply and for highlighting the importance of oversight — it’s clear we’re aligned on the need for transparency, but perhaps differ on how best to achieve it.

I want to emphasize that we’re mindful of DAO spending and believe we should aim for lean, efficient solutions — especially in the current market environment.

While the idea of a third-party oversight committee is well-intentioned, it introduces new overhead, compensation structures, and tool costs that may not be necessary to achieve the same goals.

Instead, we believe the simplest and most cost-effective solution is already within reach:

:white_check_mark: Invite core contributors to join the Foundation’s regular sync calls with market makers on a rotating basis.

This direct participation gives trusted DAO members visibility into operations, performance, and challenges — without requiring sensitive data to be made public or standing up a new committee. It fosters continuity, builds trust, and offers real-time insights without increasing complexity or spend.

If additional questions arise, they can be raised on those calls or addressed in the quarterly community update, which we’ll continue to support as a public touchpoint.

We’re also happy to revisit the structure of MM reporting — simplifying or improving clarity where needed — but without compromising the ability to work with top-tier partners.

Let’s keep this lightweight, effective, and grounded in the shared goal: building a stable, well-functioning market for SSV.

3 Likes
5

Thanks for taking the initiative on this. I agree that things should be improved, but unfortunately I think there are a lot of constraints that will prevent you from doing what you are proposing. The primary issue is that MMs operate opaquely and probably will always need to. They have proprietary trading strategies, and they will likely never expose things like their order books, transaction histories, etc.

However, I do agree that more analytics and transparency could have value. Having a real-time tracker of spreads/liquidity across markets would be useful, as well as the aggregated liquidity over all markets. In my opinion, these metrics are the only thing we should care about regarding their performance, since it’s ultimately what we are hiring them improve.

I would consider scoping this down to that. Create a tool that tracks liquidity real-time and publishes it on our Dune dashboard or something. That would be helpful to traders and give us a way to keep the MMs accountable if we record the history. This might be a candidate for a small grant, but be aware that funding is really tight right now.

I don’t think this would work as a salaried committee, since I see it as a bounded task with concrete deliverables. I don’t think there’s any need for continuous management of the MMs, especially since the Foundation is handling that relationship and would be further empowered by additional tooling.

If new analysis reveals that the MM performance is bad, then we can address it through the Foundation. It would be as simple as “Here’s our liquidity data. We need you to improve these metrics.” Performance is clear, quantified, and objective in this case.

3 Likes
6

Hello everyone, :waving_hand:

Thank you very much for drafting the first [TEMP CHECK] ever. I’m really happy to see this instrument empowering community members to present their case.

I won’t comment on the proposal per se, as the discussion is already in full swing and multiple perspectives are getting exchanged.

What I want to comment on is the usage of the [TEMP CHECK] format. As envisioned in DIP-32, the temp check is a temperature check, aka sentiment check, on a particular topic, and allows for three things:

1) Non-binding sentiment gauge
It allows the community to express preferences (e.g., “I’m leaning toward transparency tooling”) without committing to formal governance. This informs whether there is sufficient interest to move forward.

2) Early feedback loop
A TEMP CHECK helps identify major concerns or enthusiastically supported directions before drafting formal proposals. It reduces wasted effort by aligning the DAO early in the decision-making process.

3) Better proposal quality
Based on TEMP CHECK insights, formal proposals can be refined to reflect community priorities, minimizing friction during Snapshot votes and execution, optionally with the support of the SSV Foundation Secretary Services (FSS)

With this in mind, the first part of the proposed temp check is spot on, as it presents a problem statement and some thoughts around it, and the discussion revealed several insights.

However, the second part of this temp check is rushing into a solution that lacks important background information and is premature. This level of detail, mechanics, budget and assignments shouldn’t be in a temp check this early and rather be explored in the full proposal phase after a successful temp check.

A temp check is described to take place as a snapshot vote, so the first part of this could later go to a snapshot vote (non-binding, no quorum requirements) after the forum period, and “ask” voters about their general support for certain directions which can be offered as voting option as opposed to the typical yes/no/abstain votes.

In this case, and deriving from the first round of exchanged messages, the voting options (single- or multiselect) could be (for illustrational purposes only):

A) I support the Foundation continuing oversight of the MM, with added transparency measures (e.g., regular reports, disclosures).
B) I support the Foundation’s oversight, but believe the DAO should also have independent tools to observe MM operations externally.
C) I support creating a DAO-formed transparency committee to oversee MM activities alongside or independently of the Foundation.
D) I support the status quo, and no action should be taken.

There has been a meeting between the proposers and the SSV Foundation today, and we’ll soon provide a summary and next steps here on the forum.

Thank you!

Ben

2 Likes
7

Thanks a lot for the clarification, super helpful. I understand the Temp Check process much better now. I see it’s more about checking early sentiment and exploring options, rather than going too deep into details like mechanics, budget and assignments for a formal proposal. Really appreciate the insight! :+1:

1 Like
8

Thank you to the DAO and Foundation members for the thorough feedback on the MM oversight proposal. Your insights have been critical in clarifying next steps and aligning on priorities.

LinkoPlus and I value the opportunity to engage in this dialogue. As we refine the approach, we’re eager to:

  • Continue collaborating with the team to understand operational complexities
  • Gather community perspectives to inform transparent, feasible solutions
  • Support any necessary data reviews or discussions to advance the initiative

We recognize the importance of balancing accountability with practical constraints and look forward to contributing thoughtfully as the process evolves.

3 Likes