Voted in favor.
Knowing that funds send back to the treasury means having them idle in whatever assets they were sent in the first place, is quite easy to choose to instead put the capital at work, even more if this happens as form of growth of Arbitrum protocols and liquiidity.
That said, as others mentioned, we do need rules to make this process straighforward. When a program ends and stable funds are left over, we have the following options:
- send funds back to treasury
- send funds to TMC
- roll over the funds into the next iteration of the same program.
In my opinion the management of these 3 choices should be straightforward and not require a vote. In the same fashion we just voted to update the Code of Conduct to manage a team member leaving/getting removed in case it was not specified by the initiative itself, we should also implement such measures for stable funds. Specifically:
- for any initiatives having stables, assume that leftover stables will be sent to the TMC initiatives at the very end, minus any amount that should be retained for possible expenses, payments and others
- any initiative can specify, when approved in the onchain vote, the optionality of retaining the stables remaining from their initial funding for a continuation of the program if/when this further iteration will be voted; assuming there would be uncertainty on renewal, or maybe just a window of time that is “large enough”, the funds could be sent at interim to the tmc. But, in this case, we would rely on the program manager of that initiatives for the decision: it might just not make sense for example to send the equivalent of 50k USDC for a single month to the tmc.
The same framework should be utilized in case initiatives hold ETH, to be sent to the GMC initiative, albeit this seems a very hedge case.
I want to also stretch this forward and put up a practical example. Entropy asked me to gather info on remaining funds of Questbook Season 2. While I am not the program manager for that initiative, I did try to come up with the number of how much fund we can send back vs how much we should retain to finance on going initiatives (we are at the natural end of the program but a few milestones still need to be paid). With several members of the team being OOO, it was impossible to gather an answer in time to include also season 2 in this package, and we are now in the situation of either sending funds back to the treasury or put up a new vote.
All of this to say: we do need to have clear rules on
- team management (hiring, firing, leaving)
- fund management (leftover mostly; asking for more would require a change of scope and so a new vote regardless)
My question for @Entropy and for the whole dao is: a rule like the above, where should be put? The code of conduct seems like a stretch, but maybe is the only answer. Have thought about the question, but not the answer honestly.