Sorry for the delay of my answer, I’ll try to tackled all the points discussed here.
On the subject of the Warlord product:
The current product we are building, and that we call Warlord, is not the strategy the Paladin DAO applies to its strategic assets, and should not be considered as the same. It’s a product made for vlTokens, and solely focused on the tokens, to bring a new system allowing to aggregate revenue steams from vlCVX & vlAURA (& potentially later other vlTokens) in a single token, the WAR token. Discussing here of the treasury management is off topic, as it’s unrelated to this post discussion.
On the Warlord system:
The WAR token is not designed to have governance power.
The admisnhip infrastructure contracts will, at release, be given to the Paladin Core team MSig, allowing us to react quickly in case of an unexpected behavior or in case a bug/exploit should occur. This adminship will later be transfered, following the whishes of the DAO (after a Proposal related to it is presented & accepted through a vote).
Concerning the harvest costs & potential swap costs, as Figue stated, they will at first be paid by Mithras Labs, and later we can discuss & vote on a share of the fees received form Warlord to cover those expenses.
Currently no audit has been booked for Warlord, but this is a DAO matter, and we should decide if we want one before release.
Specifically on the Redeem Module (will also cover questions raised in Treasury Management #5):
There is a mistake in the original post, which is my fault, the redeem fee is not 0.5% but 5%. After researches and simulations, we found it to be a good compromise, which would not either frighten potential depositors in Warlord. We can of course discuss here of another value for this redeem fee.
But for the Warlord system to work correctly, and be able to attract external depositors, i believe this Redeem Module is necessary, and removing it would only hurt the potential of the product.
Concerning the asked technical implementations, these were not given yet as we’re still testing all the contracts, and making all the fixed to propose the best version we can. Once everything is wrapped up, we’ll be able to provide a full description of the behavior of each contract.
I would like to remind that Warlord is not meant to only be a system used internally for the Paladin DAO, but also to attract external depositors (which would allow, via to the delegation of vlCVX & vlAURA voting power to the Paladin Delegation address, to increase the weight of Paladin in the voting ecosystem). The current Warlord system we presented was designed to fit both to the dAO need, but also to the current ecosystem.