I am voting for this proposal because it is a safe and smart way to use the DAO’s 7,500 ETH. It will help Arbitrum grow by supporting trusted DeFi projects like Lido, Aave, Fluid, and Camelot while also earning rewards. This plan balances low risk and good returns, making it a strong choice for the DAO’s first investment.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi perceives this proposal as highly valuable to the DAO in a broad understanding. Making use of the idle ETH the DAO is in control of while supporting the ecosystem is a win-win, and hence we will make the auction available for this proposal.
We will price the proposal as 1% of what the DAO is to gain in 90 days of the initial iteration of this program. For the calculation, we are using the estimated reward rates mentioned in the proposal for simplicity reasons.
Allocation 1: 5k ETH into wstETH * (3.2% [Base APY] + 3.2% * 5% * 20% [Lido Revenue Share]) * 1/4 (3 months) ≈ 40.4 ETH
Allocation 2: 4.2k ETH in wstETH into AAVE * (0.62% + 0.82%) * 1/4 (3 months) ≈ 15.12 ETH
Allocation 3: 2.5k ETH into Fluid * 1% * 1/4 (3 months) ≈ 6.25 ETH
Allocation 4: 800 ETH in wstETH into Camelot * 2.56% * 1/4 (3 months) ≈ 5.12 ETH
The instant buy price will be set at 1% of that → 0.66 ETH.
Thanks @Entropy for suggesting a plan to make our treasury work. I’ll be voting in favor of this proposal. I like to play it safe with Aave and Lido - the yields are just too good in terms of risk-reward to not have a huge part allocated to them.
Helping grow projects on Arbitrum is important, and I see where everyone is coming from about supporting ecosystem growth. But I also put myself in Entropy’s shoes - this is a lot of money and a huge responsibility. When dealing with treasury funds, prioritizing security and proven protocols is just the right move.
When things start moving and we have a solid foundation, I’d love to see more support for native projects as many folks are suggesting. As @jojo mentioned, we don’t want projects to be incentivized to go to Coinbase or casino-world Solana, but i also see the point of first build a plan on making our money work. We are giving a huge step in the right direction in this proposal.
I’m confident in Camelot too as a user. I’ve used their platform and the experience has been solid. I have no knowledge so far of Fluid but I’m trusting entropy to make the right decision there. I’m gonna trust the process, and this allocation will generate revenue, which is why I’m voting for it.
What I particularly appreciate about this proposal is the clear accountability structure. We’re establishing revocable privileges rather than permanent power.
I also want to mention that I would love those proposals to have the tag proposal, I would have personally read it sooner to share feedback. May also be me being new. I’ll keep my eyes more open.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal at the temperature check phase.
We’re happy with the revised changes, but we would like to stress to the DAO that the purpose of this program should not be to signal a subjective alignment, but rather to deliver on outlined KPIs with respect to risk. There exists plenty of programs to support Arbitrum builders, this does not need to be one of them, as the goal is more so for growth and some rainy day funding acquired from sources with deep liquidity. We do believe that the DAO is in a position where winners can be chosen according to select parameters when it comes to DAO funds.
Most of our reasoning for this view can be found here:
After digging into the updated proposal and reflecting on our goals as a DAO, I’m voting For on Snapshot.
The addition of Camelot with 800 stETH is a big win IMO—it’s great to see an Arbitrum-native protocol included, and the 2.56% APY while boosting DEX liquidity is a step in the right direction for ecosystem growth. I also think the synergies here are clever: using the wstETH from Lido across Aave and Camelot makes the whole strategy feel cohesive and maximizes our impact on Arbitrum’s DeFi scene.
That said, I do see room for us to evolve this program in future rounds, and I’d like to throw out a few ideas for the GMC to consider.
-
One thought is to set up a dynamic allocation system where we adjust future allocations based on how protocols perform—say, targeting 20% for native protocols but letting that grow if they show strong metrics like TVL growth or stable yields.
-
Another idea is to take 50% of the yield we earn here (like from Aave’s 4.54%) and put it into a grant fund for Arbitrum-native projects or Orbit chain builders. That could give us a sustainable way to support our ecosystem without taking on extra risk now.
On the staking side, I’d love to see us cap Lido at 50% in the next tranche and spread the rest to protocols like Rocketpool or Stakewise to help Ethereum’s validator diversity—Arbitrum’s security depends on a strong L1, after all.
Lastly, I think we’d benefit from a dedicated task force to monitor risks and act fast if something goes wrong, like a sudden liquidity drop or a smart contract issue.
1 Like
I’m voting FOR this proposal because it utilizes proven, battle-tested protocols, and I’m particularly pleased with the inclusion of Camelot to bolster a native Arbitrum DeFi protocol.
As I’ve noted before in this comment, I believe it would be worthwhile to also consider supporting Mainnet decentralization. While the perceived risk might appear greater, I think it would send a powerful message to the community that Arbitrum its in a symbiotic relationship with Ethereum and prioritizes it’s decentralization.
One potential low risk approach could be to allocate a portion of the generated yield toward this specific goal.
Voting FOR at temperature check
The proposal strikes a good enough balance between supporting native protocols and delivering the primary objective of low risk yield
Voting YES.
Letting 7,500 ETH sit idle is a waste—putting it to work in Lido and Aave makes sense.
These are battle-tested protocols with solid yields, and while I’d love to see more Arbitrum-native projects in the mix, Fluid and Camelot are good enough for experimenting, and we can push for other protocols in future rounds. No need to stall progress for politics when we can simply add more along the way.
More ETH will come.
Voting YES.
As mentioned in this post I believe the goal of the GMC and its potential options could have been communicated clearer, but I do agree that
a) idle sitting ETH is a waste
b) Arbitrum’s Treasury should be allocated in a risk sensitive manner
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe the revised proposal from the GMC represents a well-balanced allocation, thoughtfully distributing treasury assets between established protocols and an Arbitrum-native project. As Blockworks noted, this initiative doesn’t necessarily need to prioritize exclusively supporting Arbitrum-native projects. Instead, it’s commendable that a balanced approach was chosen, which is to allocate a modest yet meaningful portion to Camelot while dedicating the majority of the allocation to battle-tested protocols.
Regarding the allocation specifically to the Lido protocol, as a delegate and node operator within Lido, we strongly support this decision. We believe the Lido team’s continuous efforts—expanding the node operator set and introducing innovative decentralization mechanisms—will clearly push staking toward greater decentralization, aligning perfectly with values we deeply believe in.
We voted for on this. While there’s been plenty of discussion on engaging more native protocols, we agree with the perspective that the most important factor should be risk management as judged by the GMC. While we’re happy to see Camelot added, we would have been fine with the original allocation, or even one without Fluid. That said, in the future we’d like to explore the possibility of another program with a higher tolerance for risk that is specifically aimed at supporting protocols.
1 Like
I am voting FOR this proposal. I’m generally in favor of the productive mobilization of treasury assets. While the specific allocations and chain source can be debated infinitely, I see this as a first step in the right direction. Refinement, fine tuning and adjustments can be made with future proposals, but it’s important to get yield off 0% as a first motion.
This is a good way to use the treasury: diversifying revenue while supporting the ecosystem. I’m all for it (although as an active delegate for Lido, Aave, and Fluid, maybe I sound biased)
I get the concerns about Fluid being new. But it’s built by the Instadapp team, who’ve been around since 2018, long before ‘DeFi’ was even a thing. In just a few months, Fluid is already challenging Uniswap in trading volume. That speaks volumes.
You can check out my blog to know more about Fluid: Introducing Fluid: Revolutionizing DeFi | Ignas | DeFi
Voted For, Deploy capital: At first glance, the idea to spread funds between only four projects seemed kind of not well thought out. Lido, Aave, and Fluid seem like the most logical choices. I did agree with the opinion shared by many that we need to include more Arbitrum-native projects. This is why I love to see Camelot being added to this list.
Overall, the choices GMC made seemed logical. The right balance of trusted providers with good security. I do look forward to seeing the results staking will bring to the DAO.
“I support the GMC’s deployment of 7,500 ETH from the DAO treasury.
Low-risk yield is a widely welcomed outcome for the community.”
voting For, Deploy Capital on the current offchain vote because we should at least do something with this money.
gm, voting FOR.
Pretty basic strategies, low risk and low rewards, appropriate for the initial phase of this program.
Happy that we could at least include a DEX and LP there - keen to see the performance and if our additional liquidity increase the volume for stETH on Arbitrum.
I voted against the current format of this proposal. As I suggested above, this was marked as the “growth” part of these investments. I have nothing against the protocols chosen and the reasoning behind this, but we are missing an opportunity to have “COL” (Chain Owned Liquidity) on more Arbitrum protocols. Several delegates voiced this, and we are missing the mark by not, at leat, split the allocation in two tranches so we have more time to explore other venues within our ecosystem.
1 Like
I support this proposal and options presented by the GMC.
100% agreed with this opinion. The alternatives presented had a reasonable growth-kickback to Arbitrum in general (at least in theory) so making it mandatory or voting against this just with the sole argument the protocols might be or not be Arbitrum exclusive is a terrible take. And as we all know, exclusivity can change in no time.
Anyway, it all comes down to the objective of the capital deployment. Yield, ecosystem support, liquidity expansion, attracting retail users, give out grants for talent… all are valid options and all vectors demand a different analysis and choices on where and why to deploy funds on a specific location. In the context of Treasury Management and specifically looking for ETH yield (not ecosystem or developer support, which although a nice to have, not the main objective) this makes sense.
These were the shortfalls the initial proposal wanted to address:
For all of the above, the choices make sense to me. I have voted ABSTAIN instead of FOR since I am an investor in Fluid.
Hello All,
The GMC has been informed that due to business-related decisions from the Aave and Lido DAOs, there will no longer be a 3-month period of deposit incentives for wstETH on Aave. As a result, the Lido x Aave GMC submission will face a drawdown in the temporarily inflated yield of ~0.82%, thus reducing the yield of the strategy to an estimated ~3.72% APY. This incentive program was originally planned to be in effect for 3 months, so the foregone yield is just ~$18k, and thus does not alter the GMC’s recommendation. We wanted to be sure the community was aware of this change given the incentives were discontinued mid-vote. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please contact the GMC or reply to this post.
7 Likes