I will be voting “For” this proposal to consolidate councils.
In general, it just makes sense to do this. Cost alone is severely eating into yield (looks like the project is barely breaking even)… and while I know there are non-yield related reasons to do these things, its important to be reasonable where possible.
I also think this type of org structure is inefficient on multiple levels. Council’s having to coordinate with other councils on decisions that affect the larger goal, applicants who have to navigate 3 separate committees, and DAO Delegates who don’t have a singular source to contact with any treasury management issues
Support doing this for the treasury management councils, and would recommend that if there are other similiar issues happening either now or in the future, to address in the same manner.
Entropy recognizes, as the author of the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts, that a conflict of interest exists given our position on the proposed council. We are disclosing this conflict before voting FOR the consolidation on Snapshot.
Voting in favor, this proposal has my full support. Fragmented committees always lead to inefficiencies and unclear responsibilities, so consolidating treasury management within a unified structure is a smart move. Plus the fact that it comes with no additional expenses makes the proposal even more reasonable
This proposal is a great example of why Entropy Advisors is a important(almost crucial) entity that the Arbitrum DAO needs, these inefficiencies are most likely spotted by other delegates, but most do not have time/incentives or an action plan on how to address them.
Merging 3 fragmented committees into one 1 seems like the logical decision, we all know DAOs are the wrong type of attractor and they usually have to make 2 many mistakes before executing correctly, in this case the overhead seems to equal the yield generated thus making this whole effort redundant for the DAO imo in the present.
Will be voting FOR this proposal. My only questions are why has this not been done earlier(I apologize if I’m missing some context on why this decision was made now) and how can we ensure we eliminate this type of overhead in the future in due time?
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR (Adopt the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council) on this proposal at theSnapshot Vote.
Rationale
In alignment with what we stated in our rationale for the reallocation of USDM funds proposal we believe that the proposed framework to adjust prior asset allocations makes a lot of sense especially considering that the OAT would be involved
As for allocating new assets from the treasury, we recognize that revenue inflows are increasing from multiple sources (e.g., Timeboost, Sequencer fees). Given this, a more streamlined and efficient process is needed to prevent these funds from sitting idle and to ensure capital is put to work effectively.
Overall, we’re aligned with the intentions of this proposal and support consolidating efforts under a unified structure. It’s a logical next step in the DAO’s financial evolution.
Lastly, while we’re not fully aware of Entropy’s administrative costs for managing this process, we agree with the general sentiment that the layered cost structures of previous programs (TMC, GMC, STEP1, STEP2, etc.) were excessive and unsustainable.
I have in favour of this proposal. Makes sense to consolidate TMC GMC and STEMP cs., not only for operation efficiency but for better general coordination. Hopefully it will also have a positive impact on accountability, with increased complexity it’s more difficult to keep track and thus information can be easily be lost or overlooked.
Voted FOR.
Consolidating TMC + GMC + STEP into a single Treasury Management Council (ATMC) should finally give us one holistic strategy instead of three disconnected play-books.
Oversight & Transparency (OAT) still retains final sign-off on allocations, which puts a real circuit-breaker between Entropy (as treasurer) and the funds.
We repurpose the unspent 1 M ARB from the old committees, saving the DAO another budget ask in the short term.
Caveats I’ll be watching
Entropy creates both the macro strategy and picks the service-providers that execute it. That’s efficient but also a classic single-point-of-failure.
OAT’s five members are great generalists, yet they may lack deep treasury or RWA expertise to vet Entropy’s calls.
One thing to clarify before Tally
Consider outlining a bit more about how you intend to select the service provider playbooks (timeline, open RFP vs. pre-vetted list, replacement rights). Knowing the guard-rails before funds move would reduce the centralization concern.