Swiss Stake has reviewed the nine original submissions. Following the initial review, we sent each team proposal-specific questions covering areas that required further clarification, including methodology, readiness, staffing, market-launch capacity, incident coverage, scope, and pricing. Their responses and any supporting materials provided directly to us have also informed this assessment.
These follow-up exchanges took place directly with the teams, and proposers are welcome to publish their full responses, supporting materials, or any further addendum in their respective proposal threads before the preference votes begin.
We considered technical capability, operational readiness, relevant delivery history, Curve familiarity, team capacity, continuity, and commercial value. The notes below summarize the main strengths, concerns, and operational tradeoffs that stood out to Swiss Stake, and should be read alongside the original proposals and any subsequent public addenda. Costs are also shown on an annualized basis for comparison and reflect the latest standalone offers provided to Swiss Stake. Scopes, initial commitment periods, and payment structures differ, and are noted where relevant.
This assessment is intended to inform the DAO’s preference votes, while the final appointment and funding decision remains with the DAO.
Our qualitative assessment is as follows:
- yRisk brings deep practical knowledge of Curve and Llamalend through its work on Yearn, Resupply, and related open-source tooling. Its automation-first model and open deliverables are also attractive. The main concern is capacity. Two contributors with other responsibilities would need to cover both scopes, support a fast pace of new Llamalend markets, and monitor a growing risk surface. It is not yet clear whether they can sustain that workload and provide sufficient incident coverage as the number of markets expands. Cost: $250,000 annually for both scopes.
- BA Labs has a strong risk-provider track record and submitted one of the most complete operational proposals, covering both scopes, monitoring, governance execution, and handoff. They commit to delivering their simulation tooling within ten days and completing a market recommendation within four days once the methodology has been reviewed. The Curve-specific simulation methodology would still need validation before live use, but the tooling would be open sourced and available for review. The main remaining operational question is whether this turnaround can be maintained across a steady flow of new markets. Cost: $200,000 annually without dashboard or backend maintenance, or $250,000 with maintenance of existing infrastructure.
- Blockworks Advisory offers a credible team, strong organizational support, and relevant work with Ethena and Spark. They provide clear review-capacity commitments, with standard assessments within five business days and one or two major reviews per week. Their broader monitoring infrastructure and a Curve proof of concept already exist, while the Curve-specific onchain integration, LLAMMA models, and human alert-escalation process would be completed during a 30-day onboarding period. Their direct Curve and LLAMMA delivery history is less established than some alternatives, but the proposal otherwise appears operationally credible. Cost: $240,000 annually for both scopes.
- Curvature knows Curve well and proposes to have all three team members working full-time on the mandate. Its core parameter methodologies would be available from day one. Broader monitoring and monetary-policy work would still need to be developed during the first 60 days, while its 24-hour critical-response commitment is slower than several alternatives. Cost: $400,000 annualized for both scopes, proposed as $200,000 for an initial six-month mandate.
- Xerberus offers a focused Scope 2 proposal built around an existing data and monitoring engine, with a useful three-month checkpoint and strong handoff terms. The main concern is the reliability of the analysis. The supporting reviews contained some material inaccuracies and did not give us enough confidence in its quality-control process. Governance payload creation is also outside the scope, meaning Xerberus would need to work alongside a Scope 1 provider and existing Curve contributors. Cost: $100,000 annually for Scope 2, paid in CRV and max-locked as veCRV.
- Pharos Watch already provides public crvUSD monitoring and has clear expertise in stablecoin, peg, liquidity, and dependency risk. Its Scope 1 boundary is well defined, while the proposed three-month trial and handoff terms limit the initial commitment. The LLAMMA simulation and calibration layer would still need to be completed and proven during the trial. TokenBrice would initially own the quantitative work and final recommendations, with the third quantitative analyst recruited after approval, creating some key-person risk until the team expands. Cost: $350,000 annually for Scope 1, with an $87,500 three-month trial.
- Tulipa proposes a strong operating model, including block-level monitoring, round-the-clock coverage, rapid human validation, substantial staffing, and strong handoff terms. Its relevant track record, however, is mainly in managing proprietary and third-party capital rather than providing protocol-level Llamalend parameter and simulation work, while some important quantitative capacity still depends on planned hires. Scenario analysis and recurring parameter optimization would also only become operational later in the mandate. Cost: $630,000 annually for the discounted core offer, while Tulipa recommends a $750,000 package including risk tooling and investigations.
- CrossWorlds brings deep practical Curve and Stake DAO experience, production monitoring and liquidation infrastructure, and appears particularly strong in fundamental asset assessment. This is valuable for Scope 1, where asset failure can create direct risk to crvUSD. For isolated Llamalend markets, however, we place greater weight on parameter simulation. These capabilities are less mature in the current proposal, and CrossWorlds acknowledged that its simulation capability is not yet complete and may require support from Swiss Stake or another provider. Cost: $480,000 annually for the two core scopes. The team is now working on a joint package, which may change both the division of responsibilities and pricing.
- Manifold brings meaningful Curve familiarity and focuses on valuable areas, particularly oracle safety and manipulation resistance. Its LLAMMA parameter, peg-capacity, and broader market-risk methodologies are still being developed, while the team has a more limited track record of directly comparable risk-provider work than several alternatives. They propose reducing existing compensation from other Swiss Stake and DAO engagements if appointed, which limits the funding overlap. The team is now working on a joint package with CrossWorlds, which may materially change the scope and delivery model. Cost: $300,000 annualized, proposed as $150,000 for a six-month trial.
Overall assessment
Many of the proposals are promising, and the variation in scope, operating model, and cost gives the DAO several different options. Swiss Stake remains flexible, but we want to ensure that the selected provider or package can support a fast pace of new market launches, monitor an expanding number of markets, and respond when risks emerge, without requiring extensive ongoing input from Curve contributors.
The largest uncertainty is the quality of the risk work each team would deliver in practice, which cannot be fully established in advance from proposals, methodologies, and supporting examples. Regardless of which option is preferred, we therefore recommend an initial limited mandate with a public review checkpoint before the DAO decides whether to continue or expand the engagement.
Next steps
Separate non-binding DAO preference votes for each eligible proposal or package are expected later this week. All votes will open and close at the same time, and voters may support more than one option. The option receiving the greatest total voting weight in favor will be treated as the DAO’s preferred option.
Before the votes begin, proposers are welcome to publish their full follow-up responses, supporting materials, or any further addendum in their respective proposal threads. Teams working on joint packages should publish them as soon as possible. Once confirmed, a joint package will replace the corresponding standalone proposals for the preference votes.
These votes will identify the DAO’s preferred provider or package, but will not authorize funding. Afterwards, Swiss Stake or other DAO contributors can work with the preferred provider to finalize the exact scope and terms where needed. The resulting mandate and funding request can then be submitted to the DAO for final approval.