I just cast my vote on Snapshot and decided to vote against the proposal. While the program has good intentions, I see a few potential issues. First, managing multiple token swaps could become complicated, requiring significant time and resources for oversight. The eligibility criteria also seem too narrow, focusing mainly on established projects, which limits the chance to support new, innovative ideas. Lastly, the short-term lock-in period could encourage short-term behaviors that don’t align with the DAO’s long-term goals.
1 Like
gm, I voted ABSTAIN here as I am directionally supportive of the initiative but I don’t think the current format is the optimal one.
As others have mentioned, swapping tokens for “alignment only” might position Arbitrum in an uncomfortable position where we have unproductive assets that we cannot sell.
I would encourage to explore routes that others have suggested:
- consider only yield baring assets (ideally with yield paid in ETH/Stables) once staked ARB is available
- consider LPing tokens instead of swapping (more liquidity for ARB, earn fees, but risks derivated to changing ratio).
Agree with others the expenses seem to be on the very high end.
1 Like
Thank you for putting together this proposal, but unfortunately we are voting against.
- We don’t think a simple token swap can prevent a protocol from moving away from arb ecosystem if they feel like to. It’s more complicated than that. Ideally, investment in early stage is a better approach.
- If the goal is to foster ecosystem growth instead of the diversification of treasury (which we believe is a right approach), the consideration is that is token swap an effective way? how about comparing to other methods? We haven’t seen much thoughts on this end imo
- the token management is an issue, which requires constant efforts and resources. Do we need to make those efforts if the consequence is not clear?
Overall, it is interesting to see ideas and inspiring discussions around the topic.
Hi @PGov - thanks for your great input. Related to the timeline, we received more input and have since changed the lock-ups to 3 month lock-up followed by a ten-month stream!
Thanks for your input; we aim for the Pilot to be as neutral and fair as possible.
By operating in public and using our existing reputation, each of the Pilot Committee Members is incentivized to operate as fairly as possible, given that any conflict will likely be noticed and called out by the other Committee Members and Arbitrum stakeholders.
1 Like
Thanks for your detailed perspective @JoJo
It is true that, through the formation of this pilot draft, we’ve iterated on Arbitrum’s primary value proposition as we gained new insights and feedback.
I can understand your perspective on yield generation and voting power activity. Related to the Treasury management questions, this dependency may take months to mature.
The same goes for the legal clarity and infra to enable direct investments.
Thanks for sharing the input; hopefully, you see enough value in this direction to consider suggesting (some elements of it) in future incentive programs.
1 Like
Thanks for clarification, I’ll stay tuned.
Thank you for stewarding this conversation, @LuukDAO.
Token swap sounds interesting and could be beneficial but in its current form, this proposal doesn’t seem to be bringing much alignment and bidirectional upside to Arbitrum as several delegates already stated.
On the KPIs front, would executing three swaps really give us a better understanding of the change of behavior of ecosystem players in Arbitrum? Are we sure we would get sufficient information from that?
Talking to the swap generally, I know you touched on The pressures that end partnerships in the report you linked. However, coming to Arbitrum, what are the plans in place to tackle some these issues you stated in the report? There is the risk of project failure and while diversification spreads risk, the DAO could end up holding tokens of projects that do not succeed, which could become a drag on the treasury. We suggest including a contingency plan for underperforming swaps.
I will vote against the proposal on Snapshot, for the reasons previously shared.
Despite this, I would like to thank @LuukDAO for kindly conducting the investigation, submitting the proposal, and fostering the debate.
One comment on this: in theory, the incentives are supposed to drive such actions, but in practice, not many are willing to be the watchdogs who call out COI situations. I believe @Larva point is valid.
Finally, I find this idea interesting, and if the proposal passes, it would be worth shaping how you think the DAO should handle such a meta-governance initiative
2 Likes
We will vote against the Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot because it presents significant risks without guaranteed long-term benefits. Swapping ARB tokens could lower their value, and there’s no clear way to measure success.
1 Like
Voted For: Even though the sentiment toward this proposal is negative and the reasons seem valid, I still applaud this innovative proposal. The Token Swap program could be viewed as an experiment on how to connect and engage with ecosystem projects as a DAO. We can expect competition to become fierce with all the upcoming L2s and L3s, as well as competition outside the Ethereum world, so we as a DAO need to be innovative and experiment with different programs. Only this way will we maintain our leadership in this space.
1 Like
I understand that it’s important to keep good relationships with key projects in the ecosystem, but I’m not sure this is the right move. I think we should consider the risk of price volatility, as it could negatively impact both the project and Arbitrum’s reputation. So I choose to abstain 
1 Like
I voted against the proposal. It doesn’t seem the right place for the DAO to spend resources at this point, as there are more structural matters that need to be figured out before.
voting For the current offchain proposal because it is an innovative token swap mechanic and it will send a message of commitment to the protocols selected.
I voted AGAINST this proposal at the temp check stage for two reasons.
First, I don’t think the size of the program will provide sufficient signal on whether the program works. For many projects, I don’t think a few hundred thousand ARB is enough to achieve “alignment”.
Second, I don’t feel comfortable with the criteria outlined here. I think more evidence is required to show that the selected projects have actively created value for Arbitrum will continue to do so.
4 Likes
I am voting Against this proposal as written, but am really excited about this direction!
I love the idea of token swaps, but am not for the terms that are here. I would want a much larger amount ($500k min per swap), but thats not so bad for a pilot, the deal breakers for me are the unlock schedule and the fact that it is a straight swap and not an LP.
I would like to see a MUCH longer unlock period (at least 2 years, ideally never, unless there is a crises in either protocol), and I would make them all LPs. A token swap with an LP is just better for creating economic alignment and creates liquidity for both groups. It becomes a partnership instead of a transaction, I was surprised there was no research done on that in the report.
Contrary to some in the forum, I think the whitelisting process is a great start for picking the first 3 projects, and the overhead is in the reasonable range but it would be much better if we did larger swaps.
4 Likes
I’m voting against. After following the discussions and evaluating all the elements, I think that this proposal has too many risks or aspects that don’t match with the goals of the DAO. The short-term lock-in period might make it difficult to set long-term success. I’m also voting against because of the uncertain feasibility of an actual diversification of the treasury, which was set as one of the goals of the proposal. I find this Token Swap Pilot Program interesting, but not in these terms.
But I’m happy to see that this allowed interesting discussions, bringing in new ideas and different approaches to refine the proposal.
I vote against the proposal because it limits participation to projects already on Arbitrum.
A thorough review of the program’s structure is necessary to ensure it maximizes strategic advantages, not just financial ones, thereby strengthening Arbitrum’s overall ecosystem and future growth.
1 Like
We do not support this proposal. Using a platform like aera.finance would provide better value than exposure to these supposed blue-chip projects. Their high inflation rates will likely diminish their value in the next market cycle.
1 Like
We are voting ABSTAIN on the proposal due to being a named member of the Pilot Council.
We knew this would be a interesting debate with widely differing views which has not disappointed, and we appreciate all delegates for expressing their views.
3 Likes