Happy to provide a bit more context.
First off, I want to say, my feedback is strictly related to the idea of swapping Dai to stETH. The subsequent idea of using the swapped stETH as sponsorship is not a factor in my opinion.
My biggest concern is that I want to avoid making (what I view as) ad hoc, one-off, decisions on managing assets under POOL token control. Instead, I’d like to focus efforts on agreeing to a holistic plan that addresses both the purpose of the treasury and how it is managed.
I see this proposal as a step towards active management… which might be fine but if that’s the path we want to take but if we do, we should be thoughtful about it and understand what risks we are now taking on and how those differ from the current setup.
So I see a pretty marginal benefit to making this change right now compared with taking some time to analyze what overall setup we want and implementing that.
One piece of missing context for you @BraveNewDeFi is that last week on the council call I discussed how PoolTogether Inc had just hired a researcher to explore if & how we want to setup a “foundation” type entity to manage some activities related to the protocol. I anticipate that in the next couple of weeks there will be an initial report for the community to read on that. So I’d see a decision like this as subsequent to that conversation.