[Proposal] Decentralized Fund Management Protocol

Hey community!

We are currently in the process of submitting a spend proposal to build a decentralized fund management protocol on top of Mirror.

Given the size of the project, our team is looking for funding to start the development process and cover costs associated with the initial launch of Spar protocol.

We’ve gathered our thoughts, research and ideas in this document: http://proposal.spar.finance/

Before we submit it onchain, we wanted to get everyone’s feedback.

Our team is very excited about this project and believe it would bring quite a bit of value to the Mirror and Terra ecosystem. It’s a product the market desperately needs.

We hope you enjoy going through the proposal. If there’s any questions or concerns you can reply to this post or join our community chat here.


I personally think that it’s a good one as it aligns with Mirror Protocol’s goals to offer a decentralised investment protocol. Do you guys perhaps have any demo product / website / smart contracts that we can take a look?

The problem statement seems more like wishful thinking to me than the reality of investment management. Anyone can create an account to a fund supermarket with minimal hassle.

Asset Management has been revolutionized multiple times in the past decades with the arrival of ETFs, fund supermarket and the widening of assets available.

Mirror Protocol doesn’t need fund managers. Anyone can propose a new INDEX of stocks.

Moreover there is a lot to say on the proposal, It lacks substance and MVC demo (minimal viable product), the team didn’t link any Linkedin profile etc.

I will vote against such proposal.

I have given a look: I see only a static website on github and i am therefore a bit skeptical. How do you want to interact with mirror? through API? Have you contributed to the development of the current one or will you contribute to enhancement if needed?
I believe that a POC should be presented before any community fund raising. This is a view I have not just on this proposal but on any similar ones.
BTW the idea would bring liquidity in the ecosystem and volume which is the end goal of every defi project. What I think we need to assess is the capability to deliver as well as team commitment.

Thank you for the feedback!

We have started the wireframe of the product and will be starting on the front-end soon. Smart contract development will start once the proposal is approved.

Hey blackbird, thanks for your feedback. We haven’t started the core development on Spar Protocol. Once the project is funded we will start development and keep everyone updated on our progress.

I understand what you’re saying about the website but anybody can throw up a website and it won’t really prove any execution on the project - we rather spend that time on more important tasks at this moment. That being said, you can expect to see a landing page up in the next few weeks.

Correct, we will be communicating with Mirror through smart contracts and API. There might be opportunities where our team will contribute to Mirror if needed.

While we do not have an MVP ready at this moment, we have formed proper alliances to make sure we have access to the right resources and execute this project.

Hey! Thank you for the feedback.

“Asset Management has been revolutionized multiple times in the past decades with the arrival of ETFs, fund supermarket and the widening of assets available”

I understand your point of view when it comes to “revolutionized assets” but we are looking at it from the side of managing and creating a fund which has a lot of room to improve.

“Mirror Protocol doesn’t need fund managers. Anyone can propose a new INDEX of stocks.”

There’s a big advantage to having a fund management protocol built on top of Mirror. It will increase the market cap and volume. It will also bring in a new audience into the ecosystem. Managing a fund is more than buying an index of stocks, its much more versatile.

Moreover there is a lot to say on the proposal, It lacks substance and MVC demo (minimal viable product), the team didn’t link any Linkedin profile etc.

What kind of substance are you looking for? Feel free to elaborate so we can clear out any confusions if necessary. The proposal is there to outline the MVP which will be built once funding is received. The MVP will be a functional product so we can start taking in more feedback and grow the ecosystem with funds.

All of our profiles are public, feel free to look us up on Google :slightly_smiling_face: We also added the links to the founders LinkedIn profiles.

In my opinion this is a great idea. I’ve been wanting to create a fund myself but doing it the proper way is very costly. I can provide a consistent return but can’t scale due to the current infrastructure out there right now.

Of course the team will need to prove themselves but the upside is there IF they execute correctly.

I’m going to be honest. Proposal in it’s current state is a definite NO for me.
While I think funds could be a good addition to Mirror in the future, I have a few points of concern right now.

  1. Premature
    a. I think it is too early in Mirrors lifecycle to introduce funds. There are more pressing issues that need to be addressed first. Mirror’s hasn’t been battle tested yet, and while being responsible for your own funds is once thing, having a fund manager be responsible for them is a whole other thing.
    b. The current assortment of available synths is quite limited, as well as their liquidity. I would like to see the protocol expand and sustain first before the introduction of funds.

  2. Value capture
    I’m struggling to find the benefit for the Mirror if you guys plan to introduce a new token and a new governing body for it. To me you either need to be able to prove that you are able to bring in these fund managers as well as the investors for it. I don’t see any information or facts that you have experience and or connections in that field. My perception of your marketing plan is basically: “shouting it around in the cryptosphere” and see how it goes.

  3. Sum of the grant
    Mirror is still finding its feet in terms of governance and allocation of community funds and the structure and parameters around it. I feel the current plan of action is way too loosy goosy to warrant a direct grant of 1/120 of MIR’s current marketcap. I’d like to a structure set in place where not all the funds are transfered in 1 go.

  4. Professionalism
    The document and the arguments made within in it don’t scream “competent” to me. It’s missing research and fact based statistics, as well as transparency about the team and their capabilities and past experience in regards to building such a protocol. I’d like to see past work especially when you consider things like smart contract risk and the damage it could also cause to Mirror, might it be developed by incompetent people. (not saying you are, but i’d like some proof :slight_smile: )

Those are some of the things that came to in to my head right now, I might come back to this later, but I look forward to hearing your response.

In my opinion it would be a good idea to start with a (way) smaller grant for the necessary research and the development of an MVP, as well a plan to split the proposed grant in to part depending on stage of completion.


Hey Marteenk, thanks a lot for your thorough feedback. We have taken your points and shared our thoughts below. If you have any further questions or concerns, let us know!


We agree with the fact that Mirror is still fresh off the shelf, but in an ideal scenario we will launch Q3. We feel it is in the best interest for Mirror to capture that market share early. Since other chains are already doing it with much less assets. If we wait, the market will mature without us.

Liquidity could be a problem in the beginning, thus we would like to take a balanced approach and put proper indicators in place to notify fund managers of any potential LP problems on-demand. But we are very optimistic that liquidity will gradually increase and be a non-existent problem in the near future.

Value capture

Mirror would heavily benefit from the success of Spar. Some of those benefits would include:

  • Ecosystem growth
  • Increased volume
  • Increased liquidity
  • Increased market share
  • Attract long-term investments

Our team consists of members that have extensive experience in sales & marketing which also includes attracting investors and managing key players such as funds. We took your feedback and have added our holistic approach to the proposal but we are not going to expose any exact strategies at this time. Feel free to check the Sales & Marketing section of our proposal. We have multiple phases that will be put into action as soon as testnet is out.

Sum of grant

While the sum may seem like a big amount (when compared to marketcap), the assets received would be dissolved in multiple increments over time without interfering with the interest of MIR holders.


We’ve purposely kept the proposal simple to make it easy to understand for everyone.

We’ve done due diligence in making sure we have the right people and alliances in place to execute this project. Our lead developer has more than 25 years experience in enterprise software and is a certified blockchain developer. He has also written books on Rust development. In terms of risk and potential damage it could cause to Mirror, we will be working with multiple security testing firms to make sure we are not pushing vulnerable code.

This proposal is a NO go from me as it stands (as it is for others I am talking to). The fact is that Mirror governance is in its earliest stages and arguably broken in its current state. Community leaders are just emerging. The platform is roughly just 6 weeks old and lots of kinks to work out (governance wise). Rushing in to hand you the current equivalent of $415,000 in MIR is not happening.

Furthermore, I will not vote YES on any proposal before the community has more time to mature and governance is tweaked / fixed. Any grants above say $10,000 handed out before this time is simply premature and irresponsible.

If you are so passionate to build something on top of Mirror then start building it and show us something besides an ask for a half million dollars while the platform is in the infant stages - and perhaps once you impress us - we will gladly vote to pay you retroactively.


I think if the funds are granted should be on a milestone basis. In essense… the funds are only disbursed once certain milestones are achieved, rather then in one lump sum.

For example, we fund 1 month of development work, and if targets are achieved/progress is made, then funds for the second month is released etc.

It makes no sense to disbursed all the fronts up front.


I believe a set of milestones have to be provided and reached to get financed. This should be discussed in general.