# \[RFC\] Launch DAO Managed "Indexed" Vaults on the Lazy Summer Protocol

**URL:** <https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-launch-dao-managed-indexed-vaults-on-the-lazy-summer-protocol/601>\
**Category:** Request for Comment \[RFCs\]\
**Tags:** rfc, dao, dao-managed-vaults\
**Created:** [January 5, 2026, 9:32pm UTC](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-launch-dao-managed-indexed-vaults-on-the-lazy-summer-protocol/601 "2026-01-05T21:32:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sixty](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex009/user_avatar/forum.summer.fi/sixty/32/115_2.png) [@Sixty](https://forum.summer.fi/u/Sixty)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2026, 1:16pm UTC](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-launch-dao-managed-indexed-vaults-on-the-lazy-summer-protocol/601/18 "2026-01-28T13:16:23Z")

</div>

> [@chrisb](#):
>
> What I’d like to do here is put down a proposal for the next steps and to gain alignment around initial vault (not arks) parameters to ensure as a DAO we are aligned and we can then proceed with the first votes this Wednesday 28th Jan.
> 
> In summary, I would like to propose we move forward with the setup and creation of the DAO Managed Vaults in order to launch them at the earliest opportunity.
> 
> **Risk Framework**  
> Move BlockAnalitica [Framework Proposal](https://forum.summer.fi/t/ba-labs-framework-design-proposal-for-summerfi-dao-managed-fleets/651) to SIP for the upfront 25,000 USDC payment to create the Risk Framework needed for the DAO Managed Vaults.

I think we can proceed with this; there is sufficient alignment IMO.

> [@chrisb](#):
>
> ## Key Vault Params
> 
> - **Vault Fee’s** → I would like to propose that these Vaults have the same Vault Fee’s as the actively managed vaults (1% stables, 0.3% volatile) however with a different expense structure;
> - Proposed tip streams (expenses as a % of income from fees);
> - [Summer.fi](http://Summer.fi) (Labs Co) via the Foundation: 30% (Same as the current vaults) to continue to cover costs to operate the UI, associated infrastructure and various costs associated with marketing and growth.
> - BlockAnalitica: 5%, as proposed in their Risk Framework
> - Guardians: 15% - I think these vaults serve as a good place to pay the DAO approved guardians for their ongoing work, which on these vaults, will serve as the first line of defence of any issues
> - This leaves 50% of the fee to be used by the protocol, which I propose goes firstly towards the existing referral and integration costs already approved by the DAO, but accepting these vaults into it too → and then the rest to the DAO, forming part of the SUMR token holder revenue share.

Vault Fees look good as well, looking forward to further clarification on the Guardian’s role. @jensei ‘s initial [RFC on Establish a Guardian Module](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-establish-guardian-module-emergency-risk-controls/613) did not have DAO Managed Vaults in mind, so hopefully the responsibilities could be expanded on further. Personally, I would like to see:

1. Active risk monitoring and review of BA’s risk framework for the vaults.
2. Active analysis of promising new Vaults and ARKs, including RFCs to include them (I know you suggested Labs Co could do this), but might be better served by Guardians.

> [@chrisb](#):
>
> Initial Arks proposed to the forum (without risk params) for deployment the following week

I forgot to ask this earlier, but is it expected that DAO Managed Vault’s ARKs differ from those of Lower and Higher Risk vaults? (If an ARK is already included in a Lower / Higher Risk vault, it should not be up for consideration for DAO Managed Vaults)

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.summer.fi/t/rfc-launch-dao-managed-indexed-vaults-on-the-lazy-summer-protocol/601)._