I support this initiative (voting For, Deploy Capital), the current market context leaves us uncertain about how long ARB’s recovery will take, and I believe now is a good time to put these idle funds to work with a solid profit margin. As a current liquidity provider on Aave, I consider this platform more secure (with over 5 years of proven track record), and there’s even a chance we could land an attractive airdrop just for being active on such platforms.
We will vote FOR deploying capital on this proposal. It sets a solid foundation for generating stable income for the treasury.
Lido and Aave are safe and proven choices, with strong track records when it comes to security and performance. They’re a great fit for putting idle ETH to work efficiently. We’re also glad to see Camelot included, as supporting Arbitrum-native projects is something we value. Fluid is a promising addition as well, and we’re curious to see how it performs in this first phase.
I vote FOR this proposal.
Main points:
- The goal of GMC is to increase the funds in the treasury, which are currently not used in any way and do not generate profit. Accordingly, the main criteria for placement should be:
- protocol reliability (we must minimize risks)
- protocol profit
- If in this case we use exclusive Arbitrum protocols, then that’s great. However, there is no purpose in supporting exclusive protocols if they give the worst result according to the above criteria
- Since the placement is planned for 3 months, we will be able to evaluate its effectiveness quite soon. And if by that time other more worthy applications appear, we will be able to redistribute DAO funds there. Therefore, I appeal to the GMC (@Entropy) so as not to stop receiving applications
- Also, I believe that these placements should have been made much earlier. 3 months have already passed since the vote for Treasury Management. Therefore, the arguments for further discussion of more correct placement of funds are unacceptable. While we discuss, we lose profits
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR, Deploy Capital in this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We haven’t looked into all the applications yet, but we would have appreciated identifying 5-6 different protocols, including a mix of native protocols, to bootstrap liquidity on those protocols and signal to other participants about the use of those native protocols on Arbitrum.
For now, keeping this stack idle makes less sense, and as the committee mentions, this is the first round of many to come. We believe more native protocols will be encouraged in future rounds.
Hello All,
After further back and forth with representatives from the Aave DAO, they have agreed to cover the wstETH deposit incentives that were previously discontinued by Lido. They will send aToken to the contract that manages the DAO-owned position on Aave each month for 3 months.
We are grateful for Aave’s understanding/accomodation here, and look forward to moving onwards.
4 Likes
We back the GMC’s plan to allocate 7,500 ETH—staking 5,000 ETH with Lido for wstETH, supplying 4,200 wstETH to Aave V3, lending 2,500 ETH on Fluid, and adding 800 wstETH to Camelot V3. It balances low-risk yield (e.g., 4.54% APY on Aave) with ecosystem growth, leveraging trusted protocols and Fluid’s efficiency. LlamaRisk confirms manageable risks, and partnerships like Lido’s 20% reward share add value. This conservative yet impactful approach sets a strong foundation, so we support the proposal with a “For” vote.
I will be voting no to this proposal as it supports LIDO. As I’ve stated on other votes, those who delegated to me have made it clear they do not want to support LIDO due to centralization concerns within the Ethereum network. If the LIDO portion is removed I will consider a Yes vote on Tally.
1 Like
I’ve decided to abstain. Initially, I was highly critical of the proposal due to its exclusive focus on non-native protocols. I was happy to see the addition of Camelot to the allocation list, which is a positive step. However, while the inclusion of Camelot addresses some of my initial concerns about prioritizing non-native protocols, I believe the allocation remains imbalanced and does not fully reflect the DAO’s potential to empower local builders.
I appreciate the effort to improve the proposal, but I also believe that there’s still room for a more balanced approach that better supports the Arbitrum ecosystem.
1 Like
We will vote to deploy capital. We believe the total 4.54% yield would bring some much desired returns to the Arbitrum treasury and the protocols of Lido, Aave, Fluid, and Camelot are strong picks from the GMC to deliver these sustained returns. In the long term, this proposal will certainly strength the DAOs cash flows and such is the reason why we support this idea.
- BoredApe90
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We believe GMC’s recommendations are sensible and balance yield and risk well. We have followed the conversation in the comments above regarding the lack of Arbitrum-native protocols in the allocations. While we understand where the comments are coming from, we do not see it as a reason to be against the proposal.
The purpose of the Growth Management track, according to the original proposal, was defined as:
Growth Management will focus on strategic partnerships by exclusively reinvesting the DAO’s ETH holdings into “ETH-backed strategies”. ETH-backed strategies are defined as opportunities that earn yield on ETH or ETH-pegged assets, with high guarantees of returning the underlying deployed to the DAO treasury at a certain point in the future.
Although it’d be a pleasant and welcoming development, deploying the ETH on Arbitrum-native protocols was never an explicit requirement. We trust that the GMC considered the possible alternatives and ultimately decided that the selected recommendations are best for what we’re trying to achieve.
Lastly, given this is supposed to be the first round of what’s supposed to be multiple future deployments of ETH from the DAO’s treasury, we think it’d be beneficial to figure out how Arbitrum-native protocols can mitigate the GMC’s concerns and receive an allocation in the future.
This is definitely not the place for this, but I can’t let it slide after so much time reading the same headline. Congratulations @Manugotsuka ! What an addition to L2BEAT gov team!
I agree with @0x_ultra sentiment here. I think we could have made a bit more effort to empower a broader range of Arbitrum projects, signaling to those deciding where to build from scratch that this is a place where the DAO provides strong support. That said, the binary voting system, where the alternative is to do nothing with the ETH, leaves me even less satisfied than the current allocation. For that reason, I’m going to abstain.
3 Likes
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR. Below the rationale:
I am voting FOR in Snapshot. I believe the way this proposal is structured shows a balance between yield generation for ecosystem growth while maintaining a conservative approach.
The yields are relatively low but adequate for a low-risk profile.
My only concern would be on the lack of clarity around management procedures and exit strategies. Despite this, the benefits of putting these assets to productive use outweigh leaving them idle.
We casted our vote in favor of this proposal. We believe its structure strikes an effective balance between generating yields that will foster ecosystem growth, while also adopting a prudent and approach to ensure long-term stability.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “For, Deploy Capital” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We would like to start by noting a growing tendency within the DAO to address multiple objectives within a single initiative, even when the primary goal is not directly related to the secondary ones. In this particular case, the main objective was to generate returns on the treasury’s idle ETH. However, the discussion shifted toward supporting Arbitrum builders, despite the existence of several other initiatives already focused on that purpose.
That being said, we appreciate the efforts made to incorporate community feedback regarding the inclusion of Arbitrum-native protocols in the strategy.
We believe the selection is reasonable and aligns with the principle of “security first.” Therefore, we support this initiative.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
The plan to deploy ETH to generate low-risk yield has always been a welcome initiative, as it ensures our ETH is put to productive use rather than sitting idle.
Regarding the selected protocols, we are comfortable with the choices and were pleased to see Camelot included in the allocation. Additionally, we appreciate your commitment to prioritizing Arbitrum-native protocols in future iterations of such deployments.
As we move toward the onchain vote, it would be helpful to update this summary section to reflect Camelot’s inclusion. It appears this was overlooked during the March 14 updates.