Camelot Delegate Communication Thread

[Camelot]

March 2025 voting

---

---

Snapshot votings

TMC Recommendation

Vote: Only deploy stables, Deploy nothing, Abstain, Deploy both, Deploy only ARB
We are going to trust the choice of the committee about not deploying ARB. At the same time, we would be

GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)

Vote: For, Deploy Capital
While we are not neutral for this vote since we are one of the selected protocols, we do believe the approach is sensitive in term of risk management. In term of selection of protocols, we still believe there should be a more diverse selection of native Arbitrum protocols to foster growth as explained in a previous feedback hereby reported for clarity.

@Camelot

While we acknowledge that the GMC is actively iterating to make the program more inclusive toward a broader range of protocols, we want to express concerns regarding the current selection approach. We understand the rationale behind prioritizing the best risk-adjusted yields and security within the Arbitrum ecosystem, but the decisions so far reflect inconsistencies.
If the goal is a purely security-oriented approach, then selecting a protocol that has only been live on Arbitrum for a few months contradicts that standard. This is not to comment on the protocol itself, but to ojectively highlight that it does not meet the same criteria as the other selected protocols and therefore is a flaw in the selection process. Even if the primary objective is safe yields, there is no excuse for why Arbitrum-native protocols that are integral to the ecosystem’s success can not also be included. The absence of any Arbitrum-aligned protocols signals—intentionally or not—that the DAO sees no safe yield opportunities on its own chain. This perception, reflected in public feedback, raises obvious questions.

We also recognize, after discussions with Entropy and other stakeholders, that there has been an acknowledgment of limited foresight regarding currently available Arbitrum-native protocols. Additionally, passive engagement with proposers has likely contributed to the current outcome.

To be clear, we are not advocating for any specific protocol to be forcibly included, as we understand that liquidity provisioning is not a priority in this iteration and that a more passive management approach is being maintained. However, given that the committee is compensated for its role, there is no reason why the program cannot achieve both objectives: conservative, safe yield generation while also supporting and aligning with the protocols actively building on Arbitrum—protocols that drive revenue to the DAO’s treasury in the first place.

Balancing sustainable DAO growth with ecosystem alignment is a challenge, but we believe that future iterations of this program should be refined to better serve Arbitrum and the ecosystem that has enabled the chain to succeed.

---

Tally votings

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

Vote: For

Since there were no changes compared to snapshot, we support this proposal and voted in favour as we did during the temperature check.

[CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep

Vote: Abstain
While we don’t want to hinder the vote, we will vote “Abstain” on the on-chain vote to adopt Timeboost. We still think all our concern from the snapshot discussion have not been addressed, and we are looking forward to read more precise data studies on the effect of this new policy not only for the DAO but also for protocols operating in Arbitrum.

[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp

Vote: Against
Consistently with the snapshot vote, we are voting against. We appreciate the effort of the proposer, but we think the initiative is not structured on strong fundamentals. Specifically, the idea that builders and founders will come to the DAO to seek for advice is a bit naive since the DAO doesn’t have the strongest history ever of supporting builders, nor most of the people involved in it are necessarily founders or operators of protocols.