Voting to REJECT this proposal
- The proposal is not really in the scope of work of the the treasury and sustainability working group (the proposer)
- As per mentioned by Jojo, given that most of the tokens of dApps are more volatile than ARB, the swap can hardly diversify treasury’s holdings
- Treasury doesn’t have the expertise or knowledge to manage the holdings of many external tokens
- Governance quality is now considered. As per mentioned by Wintermute, if the external dApps does not have a sufficiently decentralised governance and the treasuries are handled by the team, the quality of Arbitrum governance can suffer
- Lastly to seond jameskbh, mature dApps don’t have motivations to swap with Arbiturm
- Do they want more ARB to participate in governance? Maybe
Do they want the Arbitrum DAO involved in their governance? Uncertain
Do they believe that ARB will outperform their own token in 1 year? Uncertain
- Do they want more ARB to participate in governance? Maybe
- Also Jojo pointed out the liquidity problem
- “we are talking about coins that have a relative low cap and relative low liquidity. GMX, the biggest of the pack, has a 250M cap, with around 20-25M in liquidity in dexes. Even just advertising in 1y that the foundation is mobilizing whatever amount of gmx to be sold would be likely have some effect on the market. If i look at camelot, having an 18M cap, the effect can be even bigger.”
There are some merits to this idea , but the current proposal is coming from the wrong working group and is poorly defined and specced in terms of how the tokens will be managed.