First off, thanks to the GMC for publishing their preferred selections and Sam for leading this broader initiative. We share a similar sentiment with other delegates regarding these choices. Lido and Aave are logical picks from a risk management standpoint, and we appreciate the negotiations that have resulted in increased yield. Additionally, we recognize the strategic value of engaging Fluid with the intent of fostering a long-term relationship with the protocol.
However, we are disappointed by the lack of allocation for Arbitrum-native protocols. While incorporating them would introduce additional risk, their exclusion overlooks the contributions of native protocols and dedicated builders who have remained committed to Arbitrum. That said, we understand the committee’s preference for a more risk-averse approach. The GMC is not incentivized to take on unnecessary risk, but this decision highlights a broader issue—the initiative’s design lacks proper DAO representation, as no members were elected. This is evident in the selections made.
We encourage delegates and tokenholders to uphold the inclusion of elections for DAO programs to ensure representation across the Arbitrum ecosystem. Moving forward, we recommend reassessing Arbitrum-native protocols that meet minimum TVL and usage thresholds to ensure the DAO does not makeup the majority of any protocol’s TVL.
Lastly, regardless of which protocols the ETH is allocated to, it’s critical for a designated individual, firm, or committee to actively monitor and manage any risks that may arise from deploying ETH across various DeFi protocols.