Transparency, Risk Management, and Governance
This section explains how the WANNA protocol approaches transparency, risk management, and governance for GUSD and G-Series Stablecoin 2.0. The goal is to ensure that stability, solvency, and long-term alignment are embedded into the protocol design rather than treated as afterthoughts.
1. Transparency
Transparency is a prerequisite for trust in any stablecoin system. WANNA treats transparency as a core design requirement across both on-chain and off-chain components.
1) On-Chain Transparency
All minting and burning of GUSD and G-Series stablecoins occur on-chain and can be publicly verified.
Key protocol parameters (e.g., collateral ratios, liquidity thresholds, governance-controlled variables) are stored and updated through smart contracts.
Whenever feasible, positions taken with on-chain collateral are:
visible through public block explorers
traceable to specific strategies and counterparties
2) Off-Chain Transparency
Where off-chain assets or structures are involved (e.g., custody, RWA products, regulated stablecoins):
The protocol aims to provide regular reporting on reserves, exposures, and risk metrics.
Where applicable, the foundation or operating entities may commission third-party audits, attestations, or assurance reports to support the on-chain data.
The objective is to make the shape and scale of backing assets understandable to users, integrators, and regulators.
3) Disclosure of Risk and Limitations
The protocol does not present GUSD or G-Series as risk-free products. Instead, it seeks to:
clearly disclose what types of risks exist
explain how those risks are mitigated
define which conditions fall outside the protocol’s control (e.g., sovereign risk, regulatory intervention, extreme market events)
2. Risk Management
Risk management is implemented at multiple layers, combining quantitative guardrails with qualitative criteria and governance processes.
1) Reserve and Market Risk
GUSD reserves are managed under a tiered liquidity structure (L1 and L2) with:
explicit collateral ratios (CR)
safety margins (σ)
liquidity coverage metrics (LCR)
L2 (yield-generating reserves) is the first-loss layer, designed to absorb potential losses before they can impact immediate redemption liquidity in L1.
Assets in reserve are chosen with a preference for:
short duration
high liquidity
high credit quality
2) FX and Peg Stability Risk
For G-Series stablecoins pegged to local currencies, the protocol monitors:
FX movements between USD and each local fiat
the impact of FX volatility on collateral ratios and buffers
stress scenarios such as:
rapid rate changes
stablecoin de-peg events
sudden liquidity crunches
Parameters such as σ, FX-related haircuts, and buffer targets can be adjusted by governance to respond to changes in macro conditions.
3) Counterparty and Protocol Risk
For yield strategies and integrations:
Only whitelisted strategies and counterparties are used, based on:
security audits and track record
operational robustness
predictable unwinding horizons
Exclusion criteria include:
hidden leverage
complex derivatives with unbounded downside
unaudited or opaque protocols
Exposure caps and conservative haircuts are applied per asset, chain, and counterparty to limit the impact of any single failure.
4) Operational and Legal Risk
Risk management also covers:
key management and custody processes
incident response procedures in case of:
smart contract vulnerabilities
infrastructure outages
market disruptions
monitoring of regulatory developments in key jurisdictions
alignment of off-chain structures (e.g., trusts, custodians, RWA vehicles) with applicable laws
The protocol aims to evolve toward institution-grade operational standards over time.
3. Governance
Governance in WANNA is designed to gradually shift from a foundational, centralized setup to a more distributed, token-governed model, while respecting regulatory constraints.
1) Governance Scope
Over time, governance is expected to influence:
risk-related parameters:
target collateral ratio ranges
safety margins (σ)
liquidity thresholds (LCR/FX-LCR)
haircuts and exposure caps
economic parameters:
revenue allocation between buffers, user incentives, OPEX, and WANNA Buyback & Burn (α)
incentives for ecosystem partners and integrations
protocol evolution:
onboarding or removal of yield strategies
onboarding of new chains and networks
upgrades to core contracts and architecture
Not all decisions will be decentralized at once; the scope and depth of on-chain governance are expected to expand progressively.
2) Role of the WANNA Token
The WANNA token is the governance and value-accrual token of the protocol.
Governance mechanisms are intended to allow WANNA holders (or their delegated representatives) to:
propose and vote on parameter changes
approve or reject new strategies and integrations
ratify long-term economic policies
At the same time, governance must operate within:
legal frameworks
regulatory requirements
risk constraints defined in the protocol’s foundational documents
The objective is to align the protocol’s evolution with the interests of long-term, risk-aware stakeholders rather than short-term speculation.
3) Progressive Decentralization
In the early phases:
some critical functions (e.g., emergency controls, contract upgrades, extreme-risk interventions) may be retained by a foundation or operating entity, with clear disclosure of roles and responsibilities.
Over time:
as the ecosystem matures and regulatory clarity improves
these powers are expected to be:
constrained by on-chain rules
subdivided among multiple entities
moved under broader token-based governance
The end state is not full decentralization at any cost, but a balanced model that combines:
transparent, rules-based on-chain governance
legally compliant off-chain structures
Last updated