Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

[danielM]

Thank you, @thedevanshmehta for the detailed proposal.

I appreciate the effort to diversify the treasury and support Real World Asset protocols on Arbitrum.

@thedevanshmehta

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. The RFP will be similar as STEP 1 with some modifications that will be included in the tally vote.

This part suggests that returning applicants only need to highlight updates to their products, while new applicants will go through a fresh review process. However, it does not explicitly address how the evaluation process will ensure that both groups are assessed fairly under the same criteria.

One question: How will the committee ensure fair evaluation of both returning and new applicants?

While doubling down on U.S. Treasuries makes sense now, could we explore a timeline or benchmarks for expanding into other RWA sectors in 2026? This will provide better visibility for long-term goals.

@thedevanshmehta

STEP 2 will have a similar scope of products. 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. After all, 99% of RWAs on Arbitrum are still U.S. Treasuries