Final: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program

Thanks for your participation in the vote!

I would say that changes from Snapshot to Tally (within reason) are a good indicator, not bad - it means that feedback from the temperature check has fed into the final proposal.

In this case, fairly substantive changes from delegates (including Blockworks) that they would like the committee (whose only job was screening) to now also take on role of recommending allocations.

This is indeed a good point and I’m glad you brought it up. In general, I would say that the more detailed we make a proposal, the higher the probability of needing to file amendments. We are chatting with @Frisson about letting us file amendments on a tally proposal so that any pivots (which are inevitable for large programs) are represented in a separate section on Tally.

If there is a hard culture against any amendments or deviations (again, within reason) from the Tally version, I fear we might get less specifics on Tally or leave no room for pivots even when it makes sense to do. If there is a culture against deviations from Snapshot before moving to Tally, that would not allow for incorporation of delegate feedback which goes against the purpose of a temp check.

Appreciate you for driving these conversations forward, its important we have them for setting the culture !

I have voted “For” this proposal on Tally. My opinions have largely remained unchanged from my comments above & above.

I believe treasury diversification is important to the longevity of a DAO, and this is a good first step towards that. It’s crazy to think around a year has already gone by since the DAOs inception and yet we’ve not had much discussion or action on Treasury diversification. So at a minimum it will be nice to get some inertia going on this.

An added benefit will be to also provide Arbitrum a chance to enter into the RWA space. Something that based on Blackrock’s recent investments into RWA on Ethereum is something worth exploring. Since the DAO is keeping these assets within the treasury, we have a good opportunity to kickstart this project with little cost to the DAO. On the whole, this feels like a win-win project.

I am partly in agreement regarding the changes to the cost between the Snapshot and Tally vote. I do think these costs should be explained better and they do feel sort of ‘tacked on’ last minute without much clarity. However, upon further discussion I can see the logic in the change — after feedback was incorporated, the expected costs have gone up. Plus, I do not want to see the entire project be derailed over something like this. So while it’s not an ideal situation, I think ultimately the benefits of a project like this outweigh this issue.

1 Like

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We supported the proposal during the temp check and asked for some clarifications before being comfortable with voting for the proposal on-chain. Following our questions, @Devansh and the working group cleared up the air and provided us with all the relevant information that the original proposal was lacking.

We believe that this initiative can be valuable for the DAO. It could foster RWA adoption and serve as an incentive for institutional players to get involved with Arbitrum. It’s also a first step towards thoughtful treasury management and diversification as it will help to establish procedures and structures with which we will be able to build a long-term sustainable process.

Given that, we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal at the on-chain vote.


I’m voting in favor of this proposal. However, I see it as a one-time thing and will oppose to future iterations in the next 12-24 months (depending on the state of market and ARB’s price action). The amount of investment is considerable. Generally the DAO’s treasury should be aligned with ARB token in the long run and focus on increasing the value of token instead of excessive diversifications. A minimal treasury diversification makes sense for now. Thank you for the proposal!

1 Like

I deeply value the thoughtfulness and strategic insight that underpin the STEP program’s proposal, aimed at diversifying our treasury and fostering ecosystem growth. Nonetheless, I have opted to abstain from the upcoming vote and wish to present my reasons:

  • The investment strategy in Real World Assets (RWAs) presented in the proposal is indeed praiseworthy. However, there is a discernible lack of detail in defining long-term objectives beyond the scope of asset diversification. I am in pursuit of a clearer delineation of how these investments will yield measurable returns for the DAO and its stakeholders, encompassing defined return objectives, risk management approaches, and their projected influence on the financial robustness of our DAO.
  • Concerning the selection of Program Managers and Service Providers, my expectation was to see a prior determination of these key players, with the proposal centering on outcomes, long-term vision, and objectives. Nonetheless, I genuinely value the culture of iteration and learning embodied in this process.
  • The post-Snapshot vote adjustments to the cost framework and other elements raise questions about the consistency of our decision-making protocol. While it is essential to heed community feedback, frequent alterations to requested amounts and other critical details should not become commonplace within the DAO’s practices.

In conclusion, while the STEP program charts a forward-thinking course in treasury management and ecosystem enhancement, the outlined concerns prompt me to abstain in this round of voting. I will closely follow the subsequent discussions and adjustments, ready to reassess my position as these matters are addressed.

I appreciate you noticing the level of detail we’ve put into this!

The objective is growing the RWA ecosystem by giving projects TVL if they are on arbitrum or plan to launch on it. For many of the service providers we spoke to while preparing the proposal (over 10) they said getting Arbitrum as a customer of their product is much more valuable than a grant, so along with asset diversification its also RWA support.

This is useful feedback. We did think of writing the program manager into the proposal but felt an open process is more fair since we would at least know who are interested in applying

Re the service providers, the issue was we might go through a lengthy process only to find it rejected at the end by the DAO. We felt it much safer to let the DAO vote on the process and then ratify the results at the end.

I agree, we are still early and I hope some of these practices like compensation and selection procedures become more streamlined as we mature so we don’t have to recreate analysis from scratch. Until we reach that point, it makes sense to be nimble.

I appreciate the support from @Bob-Rossi , @krst & @AbdullahUmar !

This is useful feedback. I’m sure we will see service providers lobby for additional allocations but we should guard against that and be vigilant!

We have a snapback mechanism where if the program manager role isn’t renewed every year, the funds are automatically liquidated and returned to treasury. Hope that allays some of your concerns around this being a permanent fixture that exists like a zombie!


Savvy has vote FOR this proposal. For our reasoning see here:


I am very thankful to all delegates and voters for their participation in the tally vote. The proposal has passed with 61.18% FOR votes and 38.71% choosing to ABSTAIN. As gears now shift towards execution , we will do our best to flawlessly execute and win the confidence of all

I request @stonecoldpat to lock this thread. Future updates including the call for service providers and a program manager will be posted under the DAO Grant Programs section of the forum.

We have also created a public telegram group to coordinate, for DAO volunteers, committee members, service providers, program manager applicants and anyone interested in the latest updates for this program.

Thank you again for entrusting us with such a large program, we won’t let you down!