Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

Proposals
1

Abstract

This vote authorizes transfer of another 35 million ARB to the STEP multisig for the next edition of the Stable Treasury Endowment Program (STEP), to diversify Arbitrum DAOs treasury into real world assets that are stable in value, liquid in conversion and have yield uncorrelated to crypto markets. The goal of the STEP program is treasury diversification along with ecosystem growth for Real World Asset (RWA) protocols on Arbitrum.

Motivation

This proposal kickstarts the second edition of the Stable Treasury Endowment Program, which aims to grow the RWA ecosystem (many of the top protocols do not need grants so much as AUM for their product) while simultaneously diversifying our treasury into stable, liquid and yield-generating assets (the volatility of the ARB token has highlighted the need for prudent diversification).

The RWA sector is growing at leaps and bounds with much room to grow even further considering the US treasury market by itself is $20 trillion. Arbitrum has grown from only $100k of RWAs in the beginning of 2024 to around $150 million today! Only 18% of this volume has come from the DAO itself through STEP 1, with the remaining TVL growing via organic means. To stay on top of this competitive sector, we need reliability and consistency in the programs we run for this vertical.

At the same time, we have seen increasing interest in treasury diversification initiatives across Arbitrum DAO. STEP follows 3 clear principles in dealing with service providers proposing to help with Arbitrum treasury diversification;

  • Directly own the process of selecting stable assets providing yield rather than delegating to a treasury manager (no point paying 1% AUM for them to hold low-risk assets on our behalf).

The STEP program is an example of how this can take place: an RFP under which projects apply with their product; a committee to review applicants; a program manager to monitor selected products

  • Diversify the treasury in a manner that also promotes ecosystem growth, by conducting a highly competitive and rigorous process where the legitimacy of Arbitrum DAO selecting a provider is as valuable as the business they get

Accordingly, have projects directly apply in a competitive process on our forum if they want us to diversify into their product and be ratified in some way through a vote, not privately approach a treasury manager to get included

  • Take advantage of rising markets to steadily build up an endowment that can cover ARB DAO expenses from yield earned.

Passage of this proposal will bring our endowment near the $100 million mark: $30 million from STEP 1, ~$15-25 million from the treasury management initiative and now STEP 2

Rationale

In mid-2024, Arbitrum DAO diversified $30 million into stable, liquid & yield generating RWAs. A comprehensive RFP process was undertake, where the DAO received 33 applications from RWA issuers, of which 16 were shortlisted and 6 were finally selected for allocations: Securitize BUIDL ($9.57 million), Ondo USDY ($5.22 million), Superstate USTB ($5.22 million), Mountain USDM ($3.48 million), OpenEden TBill ($3.48 million), and Backed Finance bIB01 ($3.48 million). These allocations helped us diversify the treasury into dollar denominated assets, got selected providers to launch on Arbitrum and are expected to generate a yield of roughly $875k for our treasury (live dashboard to track yield here)

The 1st program narrowly targeted low-risk and liquid instruments (primarily US treasury bills and money market instruments). STEP 2 will have a similar scope of products. We explored other markets but see biggest benefit in Arbitrum doubling down on the same instruments as STEP 1 and exploring other RWA sectors after they have had time to mature. After all, 99% of RWAs on Arbitrum are still U.S. Treasuries

Overall, this proposal aims to achieve 3 broad objectives;

  • Show that Arbitrum has a plan for the RWA vertical and projects in this sector should build on our chain, by building a regular cadence to the STEP program as the flagship program for RWA support

  • Let the DAO directly own stable RWAs through a competitive selection process for providers, instead of paying 1% AUM to treasury managers for selecting and holding low risk assets on our behalf. Use yield from the products to cover operational expenses by sweeping it as USDC to the ARB DAO treasury.

  • Provision funds ahead of time for optimal execution and take advantage of tailwinds when they arise for diversifying the treasury. Building up an endowment will let us weather even bear markets from an abundance mindset.

Specifications

  • We will transfer 35 million ARB to the same foundation managed wallet (0xe41d54471EfA03eFF6365795f60545F3cAF7C97e) used in the initial STEP program

  • The foundation will at their discretion liquidate the ARB and once complete, announce the average conversion price on the forum

  • Service providers who applied in STEP 1 will have to simply communicate what has changed in their product. Ample feedback was provided to all applicants, so if they have not managed to address the concerns we do not need to re-review applicants. New applications will be reviewed fresh. The RFP will be similar as STEP 1 with some modifications that will be included in the tally vote.

  • The committee may at their discretion review investments made in STEP 1 and propose re-allocations from providers selected in the earlier edition. High preference will be given to providers that already have their RWA product launched on Arbitrum.

  • The selection committee will be same as last time with one major change: Entropy will replace Steakhouse Financial who will not be a voting member due to also being the STEP program manager.

So the committee will be composed of @GFXlabs , @northlakeslegal , @Nethermind , @Entropy and @karpatkey , with the Arbitrum Treasury and Sustainability Group led by myself as non-voting facilitating member (except in case of tie) to communicate with service providers, the DAO and the foundation. As program manager of STEP, @steakhouse will be privy to committee discussions as an observing member but not have decision making power.

  • Funds are allocated to selected providers after ratification by the DAO

Steps to Implement

  • A snapshot vote approving in principle a STEP 2 for first half of 2025
  • A tally vote with the RFP service providers can apply under that authorizes transfer of funds from the treasury to the Foundation STEP multisig
  • Call for applications from service providers
  • Committee review of applications
  • DAO approval of committee recommendations

Timeline

Forum Discussion: September-December
January: Snapshot vote (COMPLETE)
January 28th: Put for vote on Tally
February 20th to March 20th: Call for Applications
March 20th to April 20th: Committee Review
May 1st: DAO Ratification of Committee Recommendations

Overall Cost

Diversification budget: 35 million ARB, same as STEP 1
Implementation budget: 125k ARB

Similar to STEP 1, a rate of 25k ARB x 5 committee members (GFX, Northlake, Nethermind, Karpatkey and Arbitrum T&S WG as facilitating member; Entropy to waive compensation)

10k ARB will be given upon completion of work and the remaining 15k ARB will be vested over 3 years although it can be delegated for voting power.

Rough budget estimates
50 applications
2 hours for 25 applications with few updates.
6 hours for remaining 25 new products/drastic changes.
Total: 200 hours.
Another 20 or so hours for all the deliberation, selections, allocation decisions we have within the committee.
Average rate of $100-$150/hr would be between 25-33K, downsized to 25k ARB (10k on completion and 15k over 3 years)

STEP has developed a reputation of having a ton of due diligence. We think this is a good flag to hold high, since the benefits from being a STEP recipient go beyond just the amounts we allocate to also the legitimacy of passing heavy scrutiny by our committee. Service providers have also expressed appreciation on the feedback they got on their product, which in many cases led to different design decisions by their team.

RFP for STEP 2

For products that applied under STEP 1 and wish to re-apply, we ask that they comment under their old application in the Arbitrum governance forum with the following details;

  1. Start with a table of changes narrating all that’s different compared to last time. If you would like to know the reason for rejection in STEP 1, message @TheDevanshMehta on telegram.

  2. In the application form, whatever details have changed should be in a different color or highlighted in some fashion so the committee can easily know what is the same as last time and what is new.

  3. Updated and latest documents that you prefer not made public on the forum but which you want the committee to consider should be sent to rwa@dao.arbitrum.foundation

For new applicants, we ask that they create a new thread on the forum with their application.

Who Should NOT apply

Following learnings from the first edition of the program, we advise the following products to refrain from applying;

  • Proportion of RWA is less & de-fi or crypto angle too high

  • Involves equities having high volatility

  • Not dollar denominated with foreign currency risk

  • A derivative product or wrapper that is majorly built from other onchain RWAs

  • Not launched yet

  • Requires bridging to other chains. As the Arbitrum RWA space has matured since STEP 1, high priority will be given to products launched on Arbitrum by March 15th 2025

  • Requires continual active decision making & operationally burdensome, for example individual issuances maturing without auto-roll

  • Transparency issues such as: black box setups, multisig in control of executive team without legal protections, product is complicated with risk difficult to quantify.

  • Products with a tiny AUM, exposure to a single ISIN or having fund managers without extensive prior experience or outsourced to third parties

  • Insufficient separation between fund manager and investment manager

  • No investment restrictions, especially worrisome if a provider can use leverage and hedging at discretion of the manager. We need something beyond common sense that stops a provider from taking our money and putting it into Argentinian peso bonds.

  • Insufficient documentation such as not providing a PPM, investment memo, counterparty for reverse repos, guidelines, restrictions, having annual audits only or from unknown auditors or managers

  • Redemption procedures have a lag period measured in weeks or months or are limited to a single stablecoin that is not USDC, USDT or DAI or require a bank transfer

  • Decentralized governance of underlying assets which require additional due diligence and/or have exposure to the Foundation add an extra layer of unpredictability

  • Judged as not being bankruptcy remote, opening risk of creditors taking our funds in case of disputes. This criteria includes both service providers in a jurisdiction that is uncomfortable for the committee and segregated portfolio companies with multiple portfolios.

Bankruptcy remote is not just having separate bank accounts, creditors look at whether entities are in actuality separate (their own board meeting minutes, payroll with staff, etc) so that the subsidiary entities do not get rolled into the parent one during proceedings.

If you think all these criteria are met, please read the application form below to send in your application.

Request For Proposals: Arbitrum Treasury Diversification (STEP 1)

Table of contents

  1. Summary and Arbitrum info · Introduction · Requester background
  2. Description · Asset information · Oversight · Scope of service/Criteria
  3. RFP process overview · RFP timeline · Participants
  4. Questionnaire · Applicant information · Primary contact · Key information · Background information · Plan design · Performance reporting · Pricing · Smart contract/architecture
  5. Supplementary

Summary and Arbitrum info

Introduction Arbitrum governance is seeking proposals from qualified applicants for the purposes of diversifying the governance treasury and supporting ecosystem growth.

The purpose of the RFP is to identify products that provide trading volume and depth (i.e., liquidity), are stable in value, produce income for governance independent of crypto market volatility, offer transparency, and can potentially see use in developing a nascent “real-world assets” sector on Arbitrum chains.

Applicants whose products meet certain quality thresholds will be presented to ARB holders and their delegates for possible asset allocation. All final asset allocation decisions rest with ARB holders and their representatives. This RFP is intended to both collect relevant information for the committee and also to recommend allocations for tokenholders to vote upon.

Requester background

Arbitrum governance maintains and upgrades the Arbitrum technology stack, upon which are built multiple blockchains, including the largest Layer 2 on Ethereum, with more than $2.8b in assets onchain.

Description

Asset information

This program is intended to convert 35,000,000 ARB into stable, liquid and yield earning assets. The dollar notional amount of this investment is subject to market volatility, but at the time of January 16th 2025 is valued at approximately $26.46 million. These assets do not have a specific futured obligation or liability they are matched against. The Arbitrum Foundation, a Cayman Islands legal entity, will be the transacting counterparty.

Oversight

The committee is comprised of 6 members including GFX Labs, Entropy Advisors, Karpatkey, Nethermind, and North Lakes Legal. The Arbitrum Treasury & Sustainability Working Group also serves as a non-voting member of the committee, except in the case of ties. As program manager of STEP 1, Steakhouse Financial is an observing member of the committee privy to discussions.

All members are required to recuse themselves for any application in which they have a monetary interest, direct or indirect.

The Arbitrum Treasury & Sustainability Working Group leads this process and answers to stakeholders within Arbitrum governance.

Scope of service/criteria

Please include the following as part of your proposal: Sample or template investment contract and the governing instrument (credit agreement, partnership agreement, etc.). Investment selection, monitoring, and reporting plan. Compliance requirements. Be specific about requirements you anticipate from Arbitrum governance.

RFP process overview

RFP Timeline, 2025

Submissions open : Feb 20th
Submissions deadline : March 20th
Finalists announced : April 20th
ARB holders vote on proposed allocation : May 1st

Participants

This RFP will be open to all applicants with a stable, liquid and yield earning product. The screening committee will review all submissions and announce allocation between finalists for ARB tokenholders to vote upon.

After receiving applications, the committee will prepare an allocation policy for distribution to applicants and recommend a split between them. The DAO will then vote on whether to approve the split or not. Funds will be given to providers in stablecoins or fiat transfers after signing agreements with the Arbitrum Foundation.

Questionnaire

Applicant information

Name

Address (Headquarters)

City, State, Postal Code

Country

Website

Primary contact Name

Title

Country

Email, Telegram, Forum, & other methods of contact

Key Information

Expected Yield

Expected Maturity

Underlying asset

Minimum/Maximum transaction size

Current AUM for product

Current AUM for issuer

Volume of transactions LTM

Source of first-loss capital

Basics and background

  1. How will this investment improve Arbitrum’s RWA ecosystem?
  2. Identify key management personnel and individual experience. Also include third parties utilized for managing assets and their qualifications.
  3. Describe any previous work by the entity or its officers/key contributors similar to that requested. References are encouraged.
  4. Has your entity or its officers/key contributors been subject to an enforcement action, criminal action, or defaulted on legal or financial obligations? Please describe the circumstances if so.
  5. Describe any conflicts of interest for your entity and key personnel.
  6. Insurance coverages, guarantees, and backstops Name of insurer or guarantor Per incident coverage Aggregate coverage
  7. Historical tracking error in your proposed product, or similar to that being proposed Product 2024 2023 2022 2021
  8. Brief reason for above tracking error
  9. Please describe any experience your firm has in working with decentralized organizational structures
  10. What is your entity’s current assets under management, assets held in trust, total value locked, or equivalent metric for your legal structuring?
  11. How many of these assets held are present on Arbitrum One, if any?

Plan design

  1. Please describe your proposed product, including a description of the underlying assets and, if more than one asset, the proposed allocation among assets and general investment guidelines. Where appropriate, include targeted maturity mix and credit quality. Attach supplementary documents as appropriate.

Do investors have any shareholder, investor, creditor or similar rights?

  1. Describe the legal and contractual structuring for your product including regulatory bodies overseeing your business and the product and identifying all legal jurisdictions interacting with your product. Attach supplementary documents as appropriate.
  2. Would Arbitrum’s assets be bankruptcy remote from your own entity and its officers/key contributors? If so, please explain the legal and contractual basis. On a confidential, non-reliance basis, provide any third party legal opinions to support the conclusions.

How are Arbitrum’s assets protected vis-a-vis the bankruptcy of the brokerage or applicable financial institution (e.g., bank deposit insurance, securities insurance, etc.)?

Does the Issuer issue more than one asset? If so, what is the priority relationship between different asset classes?

  1. Provide a detailed cash flow diagram that shows the flow of funds from ARB/Fiat conversion, investment in underlying asset, payment of expenses, sale of underlying asset, and repayment (Fiat/ARB conversion), including the counterparties and legal jurisdictions involved.
  2. Describe anticipated tax consequences (if any) in transacting on the underlying and/or receipt of yield.
  3. Describe the process and expected timeline for liquidation of assets, if given instructions to do so by Arbitrum governance.
  4. What amount of first-loss equity will Sponsor provide to ensure over-collateralization, how is the first-loss equity denominated, and what is the source of capital?
  5. Describe the liquidity and stability of the proposed underlying assets, including anticipated settlement times from the sale of the underlying to the repayment of ARB.
  6. If relying on the blockchain for any of the transactional flows, please describe any blockchain derived risks and mitigations.
  7. Does the product rely on any derivative product (swaps,OTC agreements?
  8. List all the third party counterparties linked to your assets including and not restricted to prime broker if any, custodian, reporting agent, banks for derivatives or loans and provide primary contact details for the third party counterparties
  9. Can you explain how is risk management (inv and operational) being done? Can you provide a copy of your risk management policy?

Performance reporting

  1. What are your proposed performance benchmarks? If this is substantially different from the underlying assets, please explain why.
  2. Describe the content, format, preparation process, and cadence of performance reports. This should include proof of reserves, if appropriate. Please include a sample report.
  3. Who provides the performance reports in respect of the underlying assets?
  4. Describe any formal audit process and timing of such audits.

Pricing

  1. Provide a copy of your standard contract, or one similar to what is being proposed here.
  2. Fee summary: Inclusive of the full scope of services requested. Product Fee schedule If asset based Fee calculation for our plan if asset based Annual fee if flat fee Any other fees (including redemption or minting fees)
  3. Describe frequency of fee payment and its position vis-a-vis payment priority compared with other expenses (i.e., cash waterfall)

Smart Contract/Architecture

  1. How many audits have you had and name of auditors? Please provide a copy of reports.
  2. Is the project permissioned? If so how are you managing user identities? Any blacklisting/whitelisting features?
  3. Is the product present on several chains? Are there any cross chain interactions?
  4. Are the RWA tokens being used in any other protocols? Please describe the various components of the ecosystem
  5. How are trusted roles/admins managed in the system? Which aspects of the solution require trust from users?
  6. Is there any custom logic required for your RWA token? If so please give any details.

Supplementary

  1. Please attach any further information or documents you feel would help the screening committee or ARB tokenholders make an informed decision. If you prefer this not to be made public, it can be emailed to rwa@dao.arbitrum.foundation. Please mention in your application that documents have been emailed for committee review.
4 Likes
2

I am generally for diversification.

However, I have several questions:

  1. What are the results of the previous pilot stage of diversification?
    (It seems to me that this stage is only at the beginning of the path and there are no results yet, which means it is too early to draw conclusions)
  2. Since there are no results, how can this program be expanded?
  3. We have found financial discrepancies in the payment of the manager of this program. Given the increase in the amount of funding for which the manager is planned to be responsible from 35 to 70 million, should the manager’s funding increase? If so, then it is worth including these costs in this proposal.
  4. And finally - what results will be acceptable for the community, what are the specific goals of this stage?
    (It seems to me that it would be good to think through the strategy, what costs the DAO bears, how much we compensate with this program and what further steps to equalize expenses and income, if this is the goal)
3 Likes
3

How can we define optimal conditions? Is it at ARB price at $1, $2 or $5? This is a tough one.

Maybe setting a timeline of slowly DCAing ARB into stables over some time (6 months for example) would be a better option?

4

i’m sorry but

  • how can we extend the program if we didn’t even see the results of the first one? Is the capital of the first one even allocated?
  • how can we extend it if we are even voting for more fund/no more fund/election for the pm of the previous election?
  • how does putting a limit price to arb be consistent with the goal of growth + diversification knowing that that price might just not happen and so the whole initiative could not be live for a long time?
  • has there been any consideration about the meaning of having an official, advertised, sell order of a certain amount in the market? That info is not something you want around and can be gamed for profits

To me it seems like this proposal is not only not well timed (no step results, literally program didn’t even start), but also doesn’t take in consideration the necessity of doing it vs the price of the underlying assets we have. And, the mechanism to solve for that, are not good enough.

1 Like
5

Hello!

I have some questions: why have this proposal detached from the revamps criteria to allocate the funds? At the first iteration, we decided the amount as well. For example, if the committee identifies more opportunities and it makes sense to have a higher amount deployed?

It doesn’t make much sense to have this proposal before the work of the committee, IMHO.

6

Generally speaking, we’re in favor of this proposal; however, we have a few concerns. While we know the previous STEP term recently concluded, we believe it would be best for the DAO to have some evaluation to see how performance of STEP was carried out previously. Steakhouse offered to complete monthly reports at the close of each calendar month following the first deployments for each program, should we expect something similar to this?

Moreover, when should we expect the first round of transparency reports, there was prior mention that these would come with the first deployment of capital from the program.

We understand that RWA deployments are a slow and lengthy process from start to finish, but as others have pointed out, it is difficult to move forward without some review of prior results or operational workstreams.

In the STEP Committee Recommendation thread, there was a list of general reflections, has there been any changes in the operational pipeline to answer some of the reflections prior?

1 Like
7

Thanks to @cp0x for kickstarting the discussion and to the others for pitching in with questions. Can already see a major change to the proposal on the timing for putting this up for vote.

The reason to not do simple DCA is I don’t think we should be liquidating anything when ARB is at all time lows. We already have an endowment of $30 million thanks to STEP 1 and so we should play additional diversification from a position of strength and without urgency to increase its size.

The only instructions given in the proposal are to not liquidate at a price that is much below the rate obtained in STEP 1, primarily to address the valid issue raised by @krst

We have obtained some greatly positive results on the ecosystem growth front. @OpenEdenLabs has massively increased their TVL from $30 million at time of application to $115 million; Ondo USDY launched on Arbitrum following their selection; and Securitize (BlackRock distributor) is on Arbitrum, to name some Ws.

Franklin Templeton was rejected in part because we would have had to take funds to Stellar (their primary blockchain at the time), but they too have since launched on Arbitrum in August, showing some indirect ways STEP has made us a chain you need to have a presence on if you are in RWA.

The above comments are valid that we need to see how the program itself performs in giving us an endowment where we can spend from yield earned.

I propose that we take STEP 2 to a snapshot vote only after @steakhouse has completed at least one of their monthly reports, and to tally only once some yield from STEP 1 trickles in to our treasury. Until then, we keep the proposal open for iteration, discussion and improvement.

Steakhouse’ term as program manager is for one year only. I’m hoping that we have STEP 2 complete by the time their term ends, so that the new election for program manager will have the updated endowment amount and program managers can give quotations accordingly. It will be tricky timing though.

Ah this was the tricky part on which there was some back & forth with Matt from @Entropy. Creating a publicized sell wall is probably not a good idea, which is why we have left so many details vague and up to the interpretation of the foundation finance team, not even specifying what “similar” to the last STEP program exactly means.

The main reason to pass this sooner rather than later is so the foundation finance team has time to cook. The longer the period for conversion, the better the rate and lesser the price impact. More generally, I believe doing 1% of treasury every year for 5 years will set us up for long term success.

i hope you agree we should at least avoid the DCA over 7 weeks like we did in STEP 1. The work of the committee should proceed in parallel with transfer of funds to the foundation for STEP, not sequentially, if we are to be smart about timing.

The foundation required the snapshot vote ratifying the program manager terms of tenure to be complete before signing an agreement, so hopefully should be soon as that just got over. I am hoping we get their 1st report in Uptober but it might be November too, all in the hands of the foundation at this point.

Getting the funds to the finance team sooner for better conversion is the first of the changes. We were lucky in the 1st edition of STEP to obtain a decent endowment size, but we shouldn’t be relying on chance (it could have been much worse).

There will also be an incoming proposal from the STEP steering committee to work on the RFP for STEP 2, which additional asset types should be eligible, the members of the selection committee, etc :soon:

6 Likes
8

While we appreciate the initiative to further diversify the treasury and support the growth of RWA on Arbitrum, we agree it’s important to first assess the outcomes of the initial STEP program before allocating additional funds. By analyzing detailed reports and performance metrics from the first iteration, we can identify successes and areas for improvement, ensuring that the next phase is even more effective.

Regarding the ARB price, we’re currently at a low point, but it’s uncertain whether it will drop further. Hypothetically, we might regret not selling earlier. To avoid the risks of speculation, it’s better to follow a consistent strategy like DCA. You could also set a rule to sell if the price increases by more than 10%, allowing you to capitalize on gains without getting caught up in emotional decisions.

Could you provide any specific data or analysis to support the statement? It would be interesting to see if there are financial models or historical precedents that back up this approach.

Thanks you.

9

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.

We welcome the move to diversify into various sectors of RWAs, which signals strong support for projects deploying on Arbitrum. However, there is still some confusion about when the ARB will be liquidated at the target price of $0.85. The alignment of major projects deploying on Arbitrum will likely happen with the completion of STEP 2.

While allocating ARB for GCP & Foundation Strategic Partnerships is important, the risk of depleting ARB tokens in the treasury may leave room for governance attacks at a lower cost. If not in this proposal, this issue should be addressed.

Additionally, directly holding the tokens and saving the 1% AUM fee is a beneficial improvement.

1 Like
10

I’m happy to join the discussion, as I will soon be a delegate in the Arb DAO :). I noticed there was no outcome report from the previous STEP, which makes it difficult for me to evaluate the current proposal. Am I missing something? Is there a report for STEP 2?

Btw, I support diversifying the treasury and promoting the growth of RWAs on Arbitrum, especially since RWAs were a hot topic at Token2049 this year and are expected to be significant in near future.

11

I now recognize the significance of diversifying DAO funds, at least it would make external expenditures much more convenient. My only concern remains the same old issue that everyone talks about: transparency in fund management. Can the current strategy completely eliminate irregularities or even misuse in fund management?

12

We support the STEP 2.0 proposal. We believe aUSDC would be an excellent addition to the program. As a safe, yield-bearing stable asset, it aligns well with STEP’s goals of stability, liquidity, and uncorrelated yield.

We look forward to participating in the RFP process and potentially contributing to Arbitrum’s treasury diversification strategy.

1 Like
14

Overall, the direction of the proposal is good, but clearer implementation steps and transparent communication could be used to ensure that the program is implemented smoothly and to best effect.
For example, I would have paid more attention to topics related to the timing of conversions, the value of conversions, risk control and risk diversification.

If practicality is predicated on concrete processes and results orientation, the community needs to be transparent and engaged by having regularly updated reports to report on progress, especially regarding the conversion of funds and the selection of projects.

15

This is good feedback and one reason why we want to wait until the first report from STEP comes in before moving to any vote.

Still thinking through the best way of liquidating. One option is dollar cost averaging to make sure there is a STEP held within a definite timeframe, creating predictability. Another is to be strategic in building up an endowment without compromising Arbitrums security, since the security of our protocol depends on ARB token price and we already have a $30 million endowment through the first program.

You can see Karpatkey’s report which did some financial modeling to try understanding how ALL expenses can be covered from yield earned.

If we follow a patient strategy where diversification for STEP can only happen above a floor price set by the earlier diversification programs, we should reach 10% of present expenses covered via yield (~250 million RWA endowment) with 5% of treasury.

That also leaves ample room for other diversification initiatives like the treasury manager proposal, GCP, etc

16

This one is actually quite a difficult one to answer and hinges in part on whether STEP is an ecosystem growth initiative or a treasury diversification one.

if its the former, we want to ensure STEP is an annual occurence. If its diversification, we want to be patient and strategically build up the endowment with a good rate.

This is one reason why @GFXlabs insisted on yield being streamed back to the treasury.

As long as we know that managers are only responsible for protecting principal, with all interest being put back in our treasury, it is much easier to ensure there is no irregularity.

Makers experience is that programming yield to cover expenses, compound the principal, etc just adds complexity which makes misuse easier to hide.

@steakhouse will be coming out with a report after allocations are complete and they sign a contract with the foundation. we will only be moving this to a snapshot after the first report comes out for voters to analyse.

Curious to know which of these 2 goals you think is more important.

Currently thinking through liquidation strategies in STEP programs, which would be quite different depending on the goal.

Will be great to have your application in the next iteration of the program! Feedback we’ve got is that even if service providers were not chosen, they appreciated the indepth look into their product

1 Like
17

We appreciate the vision behind STEP 2.0, as building a sustainable endowment through real-world assets (RWAs) is crucial for the long-term stability of the Arbitrum DAO. However, there are several concerns that need to be addressed before we can fully support the proposal.

Key Concerns:

  1. Performance Reviews and Reporting from STEP 1:
    We believe that before allocating an additional 35 million ARB, there should be comprehensive reporting on the performance and outcomes of STEP 1. While there have been positive developments like OpenEden’s TVL increase and Ondo’s token launch, we still lack formal performance reports that clearly demonstrate the success and lessons from STEP 1. Transparency is key here—without it, we risk compounding any inefficiencies from the pilot phase.

  2. Program Manager Compensation:
    The proposed doubling of ARB for management raises questions about whether the program manager’s compensation should also be increased proportionally. While managing more assets could justify additional compensation, there needs to be clear evidence of outperformance or added responsibilities before considering any adjustments to the program manager’s pay. Proper evaluation of their role and deliverables from STEP 1 would help guide this decision.

1 Like
18

I’m for this, as I think treasury diversification is important. However I would agree with others that we should get some type of reporting on how STEP 1.0 has gone so far. Has any type of update / tracking dashboard been provided so far?

19

Thanks for all the feedback provided so far!

We have now had 2 months of reports on STEP including a dune dashboard.

October report: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/step-report-october-2024/27642

November report: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/step-report-november-2024/27914

To date, we have earned approximately $162,500 in yield! Not counting the benefits of Arbitrum RWA product launches like ondo, blackrock, franklin templeton and more.

We need to keep up the momentum so we become the home of both De-Fi and RWA. After the holidays, we plan to move the second edition of the STEP program to a snapshot vote.

I’ve updated the first post in the thread with all the details but here are some summarized highlights with the key details.

  1. The scope of products bought will be similar to STEP 1. We explored other markets but they are mostly too nascent with either too much risk or without a competitive market. The biggest benefit for Arbitrum will be had by doubling down for this year and exploring other RWA sectors later in the year or in 2026 once they have time to mature.

  2. Service providers who applied in STEP 1 will have to simply communicate what has changed in their product. Ample feedback was provided to all applicants, so if they have not managed to addressed the concerns we do not need to re-review applicants. New applications will be reviewed fresh.

  3. The selection committee will be same as last time with one major change: Entropy will replace Steakhouse Financial who will not be a voting member due to also being the STEP program manager.

So the committee will compose of @GFXlabs , @northlakeslegal , @Nethermind , @Entropy and @karpatkey , with the T & S led by myself as facilitating member to communicate with service providers, the DAO and the foundation.

  1. The total amount diversified in STEP 2 will also be the same as last time: 35 million ARB. With this, our endowment size will be hopefully reaching the $100 million mark ($30 million from STEP 1, ~$15-25 million from treasury management and now STEP 2), putting us in a strong position to weather even bear markets from an abundance mindset.

  2. The budget for committee members will also be the same as last time, at 25k ARB per committee member. 10k ARB will be given upon completion of work and the remaining 15k ARB vested over 3 years.

Entropy will be waiving their fees while Nethermind will perform committee member duties outside their scope as ARDC risk member, due to differing compensation structures.

Our rough estimates show the amount paid to them would be higher if they did the same work in the role of ARDC risk member.

50 applications

2 hours for 25 applications with few updates.

6 hours for remaining 25 new products/drastic changes.

Total: 200 hours.
Another 20 or so hours for all the deliberation, selections, allocation decisions we have within the committee.

Average rate of $150/hr would be 33K.

STEP has developed a reputation of having a ton of due diligence. We think this is a good flag to hold high, since the benefits from being a recipient in STEP go beyond just the amounts we allocate to also the legitimacy of passing heavy scrutiny by our committee.

Keen to hear feedback before moving for a vote in the new year!

20

Gmgm!

Firstly, and before I post some questions hereunder to get a better understanding, I’d like to state that STEP seems to be going well from a structural perspective and thus I’d like to thank @thedevanshmehta and others for the good work here (I was a skeptic, but always very happy to be proven wrong - and I think I’m gonna be happy :slight_smile: )

Posting some queries hereunder for us to be able to get a better understanding of some matters before voting or discussing further:

  • You mention positive ecosystem growth results (e.g., OpenEdenLabs’ TVL growth, Ondo USDY launch). Could you provide specific data on the financial performance of the $30 million endowment in terms of yield generated so far?

  • What specific metrics or KPIs should the community look for in the monthly report from Steakhouse to evaluate STEP 1’s success before proceeding with STEP 2?

  • You mention avoiding liquidation when ARB is at all-time lows. What criteria will the foundation use to determine optimal conditions for liquidation? Could a delay in favorable conditions stall the diversification process indefinitely? (Fine if the above are privileged conversations by the way, I don’t expect a reply to these).

  • Are there contingency plans if the price of ARB does not reach the target level in a reasonable timeframe?

  • You note that Steakhouse’s term is for one year. How will the community ensure accountability and performance evaluation for the current program manager before considering an extension or additional funding?

  • Will the proposal include any budget for increased responsibilities, or is that planned for a separate proposal?

  • Beyond ecosystem growth, what financial targets (e.g., yield percentage, asset allocation goals) does STEP 2 aim to achieve?

  • How will the DAO measure the success of diversification in terms of risk management and yield generation?

  • You propose taking STEP 2 to a snapshot vote after Steakhouse’s first report. Has the report been published?

  • You suggest that transferring funds and committee work should proceed in parallel to optimize timing. How will the DAO ensure that the committee’s decisions align with the community’s expectations if funds are transferred beforehand?

Kind regards,
Joseph
Axis Advisory

21

i’ve just updated the proposal with the latest thinking!

So far, its $167k, estimated to be $875k annually.

You can track yield earned in real time at this dune dashboard: https://dune.com/steakhouse/step-dashboard/1b508c7c-63ec-42e9-86d9-c3a86d23766e

I think an important overall metric is the ratio of RWAs owned by ARB DAO vs total RWAs on arbitrum

Currently its around 18% of RWAs are from the DAO, we’ve seen insane growth since the STEP program where RWAs as a portion of our TVL grew from $100k at beginning 2024 to now nearing $85 million.

We have changed this language to give full rein to the foundation. Let them cook without any instructions from us

This will be a separate proposal, not included here. Mainly because we don’t know how long the new investments in step 2 will take to deploy and whether that would fall under their current term or be delayed until their next one.

In any case, Steakhouse will have to make a tally proposal for the remaining 6 months of their contract to be paid to them from the yield earned so a lot of these questions will be asked and answered then.

We are starting off with the lowest risk product, T-bills or money market instruments, even for STEP 2. They make the most sense to double down on given that 99% of Arbitrum RWAs are of this form so we need to be supporting this particular subsector.

Our main quantitative metric is growth of RWA as a percentage of total TVL on arbitrum. And a sub metric is the proportion of that RWA TVL which is owned by ARB DAO vs by others on the chain.

The qualitative metric is number of RWA providers who launch their products on arbitrum. Getting them here is key.

We have 2 reports out so far!

October: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/step-report-october-2024/27642

November: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/step-report-november-2024/27914

Funds are transferred to the Arbitrum Foundation who give the payouts for opex.

committee members get paid 10k ARB upon completion of work ie ratification of recommendations by the DAO. The remaining 15k ARB will be streamed over 3 years to get long term alignment.

Hope that answers all the questions! We’ve updated the main proposal in the first post with some of these details too

5 Likes