The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The first iteration of STEP was a good first step towards a more streamlined approach to diversifying our treasury and expanding it by allocating more money and opening it up to more providers makes sense.
We have discussed STEP (both 1.0 and 2.0) with Devansh quite a lot over the past few months, and we appreciate the work he’s put into the proposal, particularly in addressing some of the concerns and things we’ve brought up in our discussions.
We are aware of the comment that some other delegates have raised about STEP falling under the scope of the TMC/GM established with the Treasury Management proposal. Although we generally agree, we do not think that now is the right time to do that. STEP should continue as a standalone program for the time being while the TMC and GM focus on other areas and potentially fall under their scope down the line.
One last thing we’d like to raise and open a discussion about is that we would like to see Arbitrum leverage the service providers we’re engaging with for more than just using their services. That could come in the form of additional marketing for Arbitrum or ecosystem growth (e.g. by whitelisting Arbitrum protocols to be able to use tokenized t-bills as lending collateral). STEP 2.0 is a great opportunity to explore more of those opportunities and how we can leverage them.