Thank you for taking the lead on this, @Entropy. Balancing the GMC’s mandate with the DAO’s broader mission isn’t an easy task. While the proposed strategy looks solid, we feel it doesn’t fully reflect the DAO’s primary objectives.
We believe it’s essential to include Arbitrum-native protocols in this plan without losing sight of safe returns. As you noted in your comment:
The GMC should have engaged more closely with Arbitrum-focused protocols, clarifying its appetite for risk. We also agree with @JoJo’s point that, in the end, no single choice will make everyone happy, but it’s important to include long-standing Arbitrum protocols in the process:
To strike a balance, we suggest setting aside 20% to 25% of the treasury for Arbitrum-native strategies, provided they meet the GMC’s risk criteria and any other relevant standards. This approach keeps the overall risk profile low while allowing established Arbitrum projects to participate and showcases our trust in Arbitrum builders and that we as stewards of Arbitrum welcome and are supportive of them.
We recommend reconnecting with GMX, Dinero, Camelot/Jones DAO, and Dolomite on their shortlisted proposals and invite them to resubmit low-risk strategies in line with the guidance from the GMC.
Disclosure:
Atomist of Castle is involved with GMX governance.