I’m voting FOR this proposal. The intentions are well-placed, and since this builds on an already existing program, it gives us a clear framework to gauge success. A continuation like this demonstrates consistency and accountability, which are key to DAO growth.
The point about having the DAO directly own stable RWAs through a competitive provider selection process—avoiding a 1% AUM fee—is prudent. It’s a smart way to maximize value and retain control over low-risk assets.
That said, the timeline feels unnecessarily stretched. With the right focus, we could fast-track implementation and make this process more efficient without compromising its impact. It’s a great initiative; let’s execute it with speed and purpose.
I like this program and its gradual development.
I see a good income considering the operating budget.
What I like about the proposal:
the operating budget remained the same despite the increase in treasuries.
What I don’t like:
too cautious development. Too low a growth rate of treasuries will not provide significant profit. We conducted testing and it was successful. Based on the results of 9 months, we can understand that this amount should be increased to at least 100,000,000 ARB (or even more)
What I expected from this proposal:
I repeat once again - I really like this treasury and it seems to me that there should be an end goal for it. That is, we must decide how much % of the total treasury will be in this program. And also in how many years should we reach this amount (and why so many years, why not immediately).
also, will there be something other than RWA? There are many more profitable options for placing funds for stables. I would like to see some analysis of allocating some share of funds in this direction.
I am voting FOR this proposal as I believe it is essential for ArbitrumDAO to diversify its Treasury and be among the leaders of RWA. Based on the first monthly reports and the Dune dashboard, the initial iteration of STEP appears to be a success.
I strongly believe that Real-World Assets (RWA) represent a strategic vertical with significant potential for the future, and Arbitrum should continue prioritizing this area. As highlighted by other Delegates, I agree that Treasury management activities would benefit from being overseen by an entity with a comprehensive macro overview, I think this should fall under the scope of the OpCo at some point.
I’m happy to see you pushing this forward. In my opinion, it has been one of the best organized and executed programs - and it works towards solving two issues.
I’m also impressed with the decision to stream the majority of payment over 3 years.
As a DAO, we need to develop the culture of doubling down on winners. This is a great opportunity to do so.
Several folks have asked about timing and exposure to tbills vs alternative investments. This is a good time to remember that tbills are primarily a store of value, though they are yield bearing. There is not really a better alternative, since bank deposits are not backed by the full faith and credit of the US government above a fairly low limit. Tbills have the benefit of that full faith and credit, and also exist outside the banking system. The only comparable holding would be repo agreements, which are lending against overcollateralized buckets of tbills, but require more administration.
STEP is currently designed to make sure there are stablecoins/cash available when or if Arbitrum governance no longer pays contributors or funds programs in ARB. This is best viewed as a rainy day fund, with secondary benefits of some yield and improving the RWA ecosystem.
I would like to express my agreement with the proposal. However, I would like to highlight a few key points that I personally focus on:
1. Whether the detailed performance report of STEP 1 is transparent and clear.
2. Whether the ARB liquidation strategy is open and reasonable.
3. Whether the roles and compensation of the committee are fair and tied to execution effectiveness.
4. Whether the proposal supports RWA while also considering the development of the Arbitrum native ecosystem.
Among these details, I am particularly concerned about the transparency of STEP 1’s results, the prioritization of fund diversification, the committee’s compensation, and the specifics of ARB liquidation.
Although I agree with and support this proposal, I would still recommend that the foundation publicly disclose specific plans for ARB liquidation in advance, such as the quantity and timing of phased liquidations, and provide real-time updates on the progress to strengthen community trust. Additionally, for the compensation of committee members, it would be beneficial to introduce performance indicators, such as linking compensation to fund returns or the implementation outcomes of STEP 2, to avoid purely hourly-based remuneration.
I appreciate the effort to diversify the treasury and support Real World Asset protocols on Arbitrum.
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.
I’m voting FOR on Snapshot. This proposal builds on a proven process to diversify our treasury into stable, yield-generating RWA assets while promoting ecosystem growth. My only recommendation, as others have noted, is to expand beyond T-Bills by including government bonds from other countries, which, while slightly riskier, could further enhance diversification.
As my previous comment, I support diversifying the treasury and promoting the growth of RWAs on Arbitrum since it will reduce reliance on higher risk assets and help DAO build a stable reserve fund
Plus, STEP 2 could create stable yields (estimated $875k) to cover DAO operational costs. So of course, I voted for on snapshot!
Voted For: I like this program and its meaning for the DAO. I would, however, love to see some more detailed reports coming out of this. Posting a short report every month or every three months is expected. Some great feedback can be seen in the comments about diversifying outside T-bills. I would love to see that as well so the funds are more diversified across RWA. Otherwise, I am excited to see version 2.0 in action. I support the program.
Thanks for the support! Batching together some similar points around the themes of STEP 1 evaluation, expansion to assets beyond tbills and operational concerns
Overall, these are the main metrics to ensure accountability and success for the STEP program;
The current numbers for these metrics which @Entropy dug up are overwhelmingly positive, showing its worth taking a risk for a second edition of the program to so we solidify our advantage in the RWA space.
Expansion to Assets beyond Tbills
So my thinking on this topic is to follow the lead of the market. Currently, 99% of the $150 million RWAs on arbitrum are t-bills. When this situation changes and we see a more competitive market for other instruments, definitely worth doing a similar program for those. Until then, smaller programs for growth of nascent sectors and STEP like programs for mature sectors is what I’d recommend as a balance between treasury risk and ecosystem growth.
Operational Concerns
On OpCo or TMC overlap
So I’m definitely in agreement that this should be the last term of the STEP committee, since otherwise we risk entrenching them as the people deciding diversification for Arbitrum dao (and its healthy to rotate the power, similar to how bureaucrats get transferred).
However, I don’t think OpCo or the TMC initiative can by themselves replace the STEP committee for adequate due diligence.
For example, do either of those initiatives have an expert RWA lawyer like @northlakeslegal who can tell whether a service provider is bankruptcy remote? Are there technology leads like @Nethermind who can look into a code base? A well rounded selection committee is needed to uphold the high standards of due diligence that the STEP brand is based on.
So OpCo or TMC can take the lead in putting together such a committee but it needs to be well balanced and not just deciding by themselves, especially at the higher diversification amounts that STEP has.
On operational pay
Thanks for the feedback! We probably wouldn’t want to change the amounts now since its already up on snapshot. Our thinking was lower end of the ballpark estimates put it near the range of pay received last time, so less contentious to go with what has been approved in the past edition (especially since most parts of the program are based on what happened earlier).
@steakhouse , worth adding this to the STEP reports if its not there already!
Timelines and Amount
Thanks for the feedback and strong show of support! Our current thinking is around 1% of treasury every 9-12 months for 5 years.
I think there is merit to dollar cost averaging, in price impact for the market, ecosystem growth that evolves over this timeframe, and getting overall better execution.
I would generally say that the timelines fit with holding a STEP program every 9-12 months, so there is no undue need of haste.
I can see scope for shortening by 2 weeks at the most, so committee review begins March 15th, depending on Tally approval.
the revised timeline would be tally approval by early Feb, a one month submission window, one month committee review.
Would love to see more detailed monthly reports and future diversification beyond T-bills, ie onchain stables money markets, but overall, it’s a solid strategy for building a stable reserve fund. Voted yes on snapshot!
I voted ‘for’ in Snapshot as I think RWA is critical for Arbitrum and will support proposals that focus on building in this area. However, I still believe this overlaps and may need to be taken over by the OpCo in the future as other responsibilities.
Two points I would like to add:
More reporting on 1.0 is needed.
Diversification of RWA is important, but no more than 5% should be allocated to other countries, as T-bills are the safest asset. This can be reassed yearly in the committee.
I vote “FOR” for this proposal.
There is no doubt that the STEP is of crucial of importance in extension of DAO system and RAW is so important that we are supposed to be involved in.
Still, 35 millions ARB is a huge sum of money, how to used wisely and transparently is a tricks issue.
We support the STEP 2 proposal as it aligns with our commitment to treasury diversification into stable, yield-generating RWAs, ensuring long-term financial stability for the DAO. Like other delegates, we share the vision of fostering the growth of RWA protocols on-chain within the Arbitrum ecosystem. At the same time, we’d love to see more focus on exploring and prioritizing on-chain solutions to strengthen decentralization and make the most of Arbitrum’s potential for RWA innovation.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We support the STEP 2.0 proposal as it shows a clear path to growing Arbitrum’s treasury through stable, revenue-generating RWAs. The success of STEP 1.0 in bringing $150M in RWA value to Arbitrum, with most growth coming from market participants, proves this approach works. Moving forward with STEP 2.0 will help build a strong foundation for Arbitrum’s long-term growth in the RWA space.
We like the program’s combination of smart treasury management and ecosystem development. While we support investing in US Treasury bills for stability, as mentioned by other delegates, we’d also encourage exploring new RWA opportunities that fully take advantage of Arbitrum’s technology. The program’s thorough review process has already set high standards for RWA projects, and continuing this will help maintain Arbitrum’s position as a leading chain for RWAs. Given these points and the proven results from STEP 1.0, we support allocating 35M ARB to advance these goals.
We have voted FOR this proposal. It was a good example of how the DAO can do a reasonable and competitive RFP for key services and continuing the program forward makes sense. We would like to have continued oversight and reporting from the relevant teams as this initiative progresses.
Where can we see the latest updates and information relevant to this program?
voting For the current offchain proposal because this program is very well set up and thought through, and the entities involved are some of the best in the world at what they do.
