PGM-69:Establishing Trevee Legal Wrapper via Cayman Foundation

Paladin Governance Management (PGM)
1

TL;DR

We propose the incorporation of a Cayman Islands Ownerless Foundation to serve as the legal wrapper for the Trevee DAO. This will enable the DAO to:

  • Safely execute revenue-sharing mechanics with token holders
  • Sign contracts with service providers (e.g., French and American development teams)
  • Protect contributors from personal liability
  • Build trust with potential investors and future partners

Terms:

  • Cash: DAO covers incorporation, annual fees, legal service agreements, supervisor compensation, and director insurance (~$30–35k total)
  • Token: Seasoned director role compensated with 0.5% of Trevee supply (~$20-30k at current prices) for the year
    This is a strategic legal foundation for everything Trevee aims to build over the next few years.

Context

Trevee is evolving rapidly. Following the successful migration from Paladin and the introduction of real revenue-sharing mechanics, the DAO is entering a new phase of maturity. Proposals like PIP-28 through PIP-31 have clarified Trevee’s branding, technical direction, and tokenomics.

What’s missing is the legal infrastructure to match that operational progress.

Trevee now:

  • Distributes protocol revenues to token holders
  • Pays contributors and teams via the DAO
  • Manages core IP, dashboards, and multi-chain deployments

These activities require a robust legal wrapper to avoid liability risks, enable compliant contracting, and open the door to future capital formation.

Proposal Scope

We recommend incorporating a Cayman Islands Ownerless Foundation, supported by a seasoned team of offshore professionals:

  • A lead director with extensive experience in DAO structuring, governance execution, and regulatory interfacing
  • An independent supervisor with a decade of crypto, fintech, and compliance background

Why a Foundation?

  • No shareholders: fully aligns with decentralization
  • DAO control: directors follow Snapshot votes or multisig-based governance
  • Legal clarity: foundation can sign contracts, hold IP, manage fiat accounts
  • Credibility: Cayman is recognized by exchanges, VCs, and regulators

This structure will:

  • Allow Trevee to pay international contributors through enforceable agreements
  • Allow Treeve to legally enforces contributor agreements (protects contributors and voters)
  • Protect token holders and builders from liability
  • Serve as a base for future token expansion, grant programs, or protocol upgrades

Why Cayman?

While we evaluated several offshore structures, Cayman emerged as the best fit.

Screenshot 2025-07-16 at 10.39.43 PM
Screenshot 2025-07-16 at 10.39.43 PM1112Ă—574 70.8 KB

Cost & Compensation Breakdown

Cash to be paid by the DAO:

Item Estimated Amount
Cayman Foundation Incorporation $6,500–$12,400 (one-time)
Annual Government Fees $5,000–$8,000 /year
Legal Agreements & Service Contracts $5,000–10,000
Supervisor Compensation ~$7,500 /year
Offshore Insurance ~$4,250 /year
Director Fee (paid in tokens) $20-30k$ (paid in tokens, see below)

Compensation for Director Role:

  • 0.5% of Trevee total token supply (valued ~$20-30k at current prices)

About the Offshore Team

The proposed director and supervisor are seasoned Web3 entrepreneurs and offshore structuring specialists who have played pivotal roles in building and governing some of the largest crypto ecosystems to date.

  • The director is a former VC and founder with over a decade of experience in Web3 and digital asset infrastructure. He has led the creation of multiple DAO foundations across Cayman, BVI, Marshall Islands, and Panama, and actively serves as offshore director or FCEO to several protocols with $500M+ in market cap.

  • The supervisor is a crypto OG who launched the world’s first Bitcoin ATM network and led one of the first regulated exchange platforms to acquisition. He is currently CEO of a leading staking and DeFi infrastructure firm and brings unmatched operational insight into governance, token mechanics, and institutional-grade validator networks.

Together, they offer:

  • End-to-end execution: legal, operational, and compliance
  • Regulatory coverage: mind & management located offshore
  • Long-term alignment: token-based comp ensures vested interest in Trevee’s growth

Next Steps

  • Proposal passes
  • Incorporation begins (approx. 30 days to complete)
  • Legal service agreements signed with contributor teams
  • Foundation operational by Q3 2025

Voting Options

For / Against / Abstain

  • For
  • Against
  • Abstain

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why do we need this now?

Trevee has reached a level of maturity where legal infrastructure is not optional. Without it, the DAO cannot safely sign agreements, distribute revenue, or engage serious partners.

Q: Why Cayman over cheaper options?

We reviewed Marshall Islands and Panama. While cheaper, they lack the recognition, fundraising reputation, and legal clarity that Cayman provides — especially as Trevee scales.

Q: Is the 0.5% token allocation fair?

Yes. It aligns the director’s incentives long-term and is materially lower than what many DAOs offer (typically 1–2%). The operator is taking on legal liability and long-term commitment.

1 Like
2
  • For
  • Against
  • Abstain
0 voters
3

I couldn’t be more excited for this proposal.
It enshrines a legal structure for the DAO, which will heavily minimize stakeholder liability.

Beyond having my support, this proposal (or any creating a DAO legal wrapper) is mandatory for us to support the activation of revenue sharing.

We’ve spent the better part of 2 years researching legislations that could fit our needs for an organisation controlled by token holders. Caymans have proven to be the best solution with a proven track record.

I look forward to see this go live

4

If I understand correctly the budget for this proposal adds up to:

  • $11,500 to $22,400 as one time fee
  • $17,750 to $21,750 yearly
  • and an 0.5% supply allocation that, I presume, will be renewed every year (based on the following)

Can you explain what is wrong with the current system, what are the risks involved and why this is essential ?
Revenue sharing is common in the ecosystem and, as far as I know, not a lot of DAO are registered like this.

5

Thanks for this proposal !
Generally in favor of finally setting up a legal wrapper for the Paladin DAO, however I have a few questions:

  • Who are the two contributors mentioned in this proposal ? Assuming they are doxxed since working on legal topics so wondering why not share it

  • Why is the director compensation requested in tokens ? Seems risky for a salary, especially as the other one is in cash which makes more sense.

  • Does the 5-10k for legal agreements & service contracts include any contract needed by the DAO over the year or is it part of the setup one time fee ?

  • What’s the estimated cost to pivot to an other setup once done ? (In case it’s needed one day)

6

Thanks for the thoughtful question — we’ve helped structure DAO wrappers across multiple jurisdictions and stages, and this is a pattern we see again and again.

What’s wrong with the current setup?

Trevee is already distributing revenue, managing contributors, and holding assets — but without a legal wrapper, none of this is protected. And more importantly, exposing the members of the DAOs.

In other words, there’s no legal entity to sign contracts or interface with regulators, and that means:

  • Contributors could technically be held personally liable
  • Revenue sharing could be requalified as dividends or financial distributions
  • The DAO risks running into enforcement issues as it scales, especially across borders

In most jurisdictions, revenue sharing without a legal wrapper can be problematic. It’s often interpreted as a regulated financial distribution.
If a DAO distributes protocol revenue directly to holders, it could be seen as:

  • An unregistered securities offering
  • A non-compliant dividend distribution
  • Or a structure that creates tax and liability exposure for contributors, signers, or even voters

This isn’t just theoretical — we’ve seen projects forced to halt distributions, unwind payouts, or restructure under pressure. That’s why structuring properly from the start matters — especially when revenue is real and growing.

Why not just keep things informal, like other DAOs?

Truth is, many DAOs are either in denial or flying under the radar.
They either don’t distribute revenue at scale, or rely on informal setups that fall apart under pressure. As soon as you need to raise capital, onboard serious contributors, or scale across jurisdictions, legal ambiguity becomes a real liability.

We’ve seen deals collapse, contributors walk away, and multisigs become unmanageable — all because the structure couldn’t support the DAO’s growth.

Our goal here is to get ahead of that — not react when something breaks.

Why is this essential now?

This foundation gives Trevee legal protection, reputational credibility, and the operational readiness to scale. It’s not about red tape — it’s about de-risking the core infrastructure of the DAO. Cayman, while not the cheapest, is the most trusted and future-proof option.

We believe this is the right move to ensure Trevee can keep growing — safely, credibly, and globally.

2 Likes
7

Appreciate the thoughtful questions.

On Directors’ identities:

We’ve been working directly with Figue and members of the core team to bring this proposal forward — including on legal, governance, and operational readiness. We intentionally didn’t include names in the initial proposal out of respect for privacy and security during the voting process.

That said, we understand the importance of transparency — and we fully expect to disclose our identities, bios, and KYC details upon ratification of the proposal. The moment the Foundation is approved, we’ll make all director and supervisor details public and verifiable.

On token-based compensation for the director:

This was a deliberate design choice — and a negotiation led directly with Figue and the team to make the proposal viable for the DAO’s treasury. Rather than requesting a full cash salary (which is common in these roles), we structured the director’s compensation to be mostly in tokens.

That creates long-term alignment with Trevee’s success and drastically reduces the upfront cash burden on the DAO. Most offshore directors in Cayman charge $25k-60k+ annually in cash and require full payment upfront. Agreeing to a token-heavy structure is unusual and was done in good faith, specifically to support the DAO at this stage.

For this DAO, the director would be deeply involved in structuring, governance, and long-term execution, which is reflected in the hybrid model.

On legal fees ($5–10k):

That range includes drafting the initial legal agreements between the Foundation and the French contributor entities, as well as any onboarding service agreements needed in the first 6–12 months. If more is needed after that, we’d propose it transparently.
The truth is, these fees are meant to be a buffer for transparency to the DAO, these fees wouldn’t go to us, the offshore entities managers - They would go to lawyers, based on the needs.

On switching structure later:

The Cayman Foundation is the best fit for Trevee’s current needs — especially given the DAO’s use of token-based revenue sharing, contributor payments, and governance-based operations. It gives the legal flexibility, credibility, and protection the protocol needs right now.

That said, legal structuring isn’t static — and as Trevee evolves, so can the wrapper. Whether the DAO someday wants to migrate to a Marshall Islands DAO LLC, a VASP-aligned structure, or something else, that’s fully possible.

Our role as offshore operators is to collaborate with the DAO’s core team to ensure the structure consistently aligns with the DAO’s goals — both legally and operationally. If the DAO ever decides to pivot, the transition process is known and manageable (usually ~$5–10k depending on complexity). Our commitment is to support Trevee’s long-term path, not lock it into a rigid box.

Happy to elaborate on any of these points!

8

Thanks for the quick & detailled feedback !

Thanks but struggling to understand why not share it before it’s voted ? Would help to know who will be managing this since I assume they are not active in the Paladin/Treevee DAO atm right ?

Also, just noticed this proposal doesn’t includes any links (Website, X account etc), and no mention of previous customers in the space either, could you share some extra infos on Frontier Partners please ?

I understand but the PAL liquidity is quite low and such a salary would create an important sell pressure on the token as I assume he’ll need to pay himself & won’t just hold/stake everything.

Maybe worth considering a payment part cash part token ?

Also can you answer @frieez_e question about the costs & especially spending 0,5% each year ? If that’s the cass, what happens if the PAL value changes a lot, would the % be renegociated to stay close to 20-30k$ ?

Got it thanks

Got it thanks, so cost are reasonable.

How about administrative procedure, can there be any issue like an exit tax on the foundation assets or something ?

9

The idea is to pay this year in tokens and the following in USDC. We want our director to be aligned and he graciously offered to be paid in tokens instead of cash for the first year.

1 Like
10

Are the tokens vested to be fully aligned?

1 Like
11

No, this is an equivalent of a cash payment. If the director feels like selling immediately, then it is very telling for the future of our cooperation

12

This is exceptionally for the first year, to reduce cash needs.

There is no such thing as exit tax in the selected jurisdiction

13

There should not have sell preasure

14

Do you realize you wanna give 0,5% of the supply unvested to someone nobody knows in the community, expecting he won’t sell despite this being his salary for a full year ? Seems really naive.

Thanks but I guess they can answer by themselves ?

Just saw the proposal is live for votes, despite not questions staying unanswered, doesn’t make sense. Will vote rework for now

15

Thanks for the thoughtful questions — happy to clarify each point.

Who are the two contributors mentioned in this proposal?

We’ve been working closely with Figue and the core team to shape this proposal and align it with Trevee’s roadmap. We didn’t publicly name the contributors in the original post out of caution — structuring legal wrappers across jurisdictions can carry sensitivity, and we wanted the focus to stay on the DAO’s legal needs rather than the individuals involved.

That said, we completely agree that transparency is key — and should this proposal pass, full disclosure of director identity, bios, and legal documents will be made public as part of the foundation setup. Everything will be verifiable and published to ensure full accountability to the DAO.

Why is the director compensated in tokens (and not in cash)?

This structure was negotiated in good faith with Figue and the team to minimize the DAO’s cash burn at this stage. Offshore directors in Cayman typically require $25k+ cash upfront — and don’t usually accept token-based comp. So agreeing to 0.5% in tokens is actually a significant concession designed to help the DAO move forward without major upfront spend.

It also ensures long-term alignment. The director is actively involved in governance, structuring, and risk management — not a passive figurehead — so the token-based model reinforces that we grow only if Trevee grows.

Exactly!

Our job as offshore managers is to adapt the legal setup as Trevee’s goals change. If the DAO wants to pivot and pay in stablecoins instead of tokens, we’re happy to do so.

We’re committed to helping Trevee scale in a way that’s both compliant and future-proof.

1 Like
16

Hi, thanks for the feedback but unfortunately no you haven’t clarified everything:

As you can understand, it’s quite difficult to elect the director of the foundation which is supposed to represents the best interests of the DAO, if this person is completely unknown of the community.

That’s why I’ve been asking questions, but you haven’t shared any more infos or links such as website, x account, previous works / clients in the space (which shouldn’t be an issue if the following is true)

As for who you are, I consider it’s important to know it before voting, especially since it seems you haven’t been much involved in the Dao before. Moreover if you’re planing to get doxxed after the vote, it probably means you already are in the space, in which case sharing it now shouldn’t be an issue.

This is not enough for me. I think Figue took several arguable decisions in the past so this alone doesn’t reassure me here.

I understand but as mentioned before, liquidity is very low so if tokens only, full unvested/unlocked is a risk and it should be vested/locked at least partially. Otherwise part cash part token can make sense.

Seems you also missed the following question explaining the costs breakdown:

Tbh both the proposal & answers are unclear & incomplete, which is an issue when hiring someone for legal aspects imo, hoping to get clear answers on the above to move forward on this topic. Thanks

17

I’ll let @FrontierPartners.ky take on the financial aspect, but I feel we are slowly deriving from a constructive debate into another inappropriate inquiries from a user who is extremely protective of his own identity but overly intrusive in other people’s.

We’ve done a background check on the potential candidate and he came highly recommended + the whole team met him in order to vet him. If you think, the active founder of the project “took several arguable decisions” then there isn’t much we can do to convince you.

1 Like
18

Thanks again for the follow-up — we appreciate the detailed questions.

Let’s address everything re: financials:

On the 0.5% token allocation

To be clear — we didn’t request token compensation. We agreed to it specifically to help the DAO reduce upfront cash costs. We’re happy to take this in cash instead — and in fact, that would be preferable for us.

The intent from our side was to be flexible and supportive — not extract value or take unnecessary risk with Trevee’s liquidity.

Re: Budget - here’s the breakdown in simple terms:

One-time setup fees (we’re responsible for):

  • Foundation Incorporation: $6,500 to $12,400
  • Legal Fees: $5,000 to $10,000
    → Estimate only. Actual amount depends on the legal team Trevee works with and the contracts required.

Annual recurring costs:

  • Director Fee: ~$25,000 per year
    → First year only is paid in tokens (0.5% of Trevee supply). Future years, normally in cash.
  • Supervisor Fee: ~$7,500 per year
  • Government Renewal Fees: ~$5,000 to $8,000 per year
  • Directors Insurance: ~$4,250 per year

Hope this clears things up!

The token deal was simply our way of trying to help the DAO reduce upfront costs. If the community prefers a full cash comp model instead, we’re totally fine with that too. We’re here to support Trevee in the way that works best for everyone.

19

well i hope you add the value of the costs you are saying… those fees are crazy high comparing with simple searchs about legal daos wrappers in cayman island.

20

That’s simply untrue, every custom legal setup we’ve looked into was at least at this price.

The only cheaper option is an automated framework like Otonomos. Setup fees are extremely similar, the only difference is that the director is 10k cheaper per year. This is because they are simply a legal operator. This is not what we’re looking for, we need an active governance participant.