I’m supportive of this proposal and appreciate the effort to reduce fragmentation across the DAO’s various treasury management initiatives. It’s encouraging to see a shift from experimentation toward a more strategic and unified approach to asset management. This is a meaningful step forward for the DAO and one that can lead to more effective and responsible stewardship of the treasury.
That said, I would like to raise a concern regarding the proposed future structure of the Treasury Management Council, specifically the role of the OAT as the ultimate decision-maker in the allocation of funds.
While the OAT members are no doubt highly capable, respected contributors to the Arbitrum ecosystem, it’s important to highlight that the OAT was created to guarantee Oversight and Transparency over OpCo. The role description for OAT members did not explicitly include responsibilities related to financial oversight or asset management. Financial qualifications such as Corporate Finance, Capital Allocation, and Financial & Risk Management were listed only as “desired,” not as required. As a result, none of the currently elected OAT members appear to have a professional background in finance or capital allocation.
Given the significance of the DAO’s treasury and the complexity of managing digital assets at scale, I think it’s worth asking:
- is the OAT best suited to serve as the final authority on fund allocation decisions?
Perhaps there is room to consider a structure where specialized financial expertise is more formally embedded in the decision-making process, or where checks and balances can ensure that asset management is guided by appropriate domain knowledge.
Overall, I support this proposal and view it as a much-needed evolution—but I believe it’s important we also think carefully about aligning roles and responsibilities with the skill sets required for sound financial governance.