I vote for “Additional funds for one year” because I believe the DAO should cover this cost. The proposer didn’t account for the ARB price changes, especially when paying Steakhouse, who quoted in stablecoin and the DAO accepted.
While it’s unfortunate that the ARB price dropped, it’s not Steakhouse’s fault, and they shouldn’t have to absorb this loss. I also agree with @duokongcrypto that using ARB instead of stablecoin might help avoid such issues in the future, as long as we handle price changes carefully.
Btw, I’m so interested in discussing how we manage these kinds of issues as the DAO grows. Balancing our budget and dealing with external services effectively will be important as we move forward
Yes, we at Arbitrum Dao should make a change to pass on the value and it is essential that more people want to hold an ARB as well as gain confidence. Something like ARB is money, not ARB is an iceberg (melting)
DAOplomats voted in favor of Additional funds for one year.
There is more benefit to starting a thing and seeing it to completion. Providing additional funds does just that and would allow the program manager complete their original term of service so we can have a more wholesome analysis of their work at the end of the 12 months.
I voted in favour of additional funds for one year. Budgets were already agreed on and because of a market turn turned out to be insufficient. Moreover, the proposal already was put in place and time and resources invested on it.
Hey! I understand the situation and appreciate the clarification. It’s not your fault—you’ve been doing great all along! After all, this is a free market, and as a newly launched token, price fluctuations are inevitable. No one can predict price fluctuations, just as I once thought ARB would soon reach $5 lol. My earlier point was simply to discuss whether there could be a solution to accept ARB as the base currency. Of course, I understand that’s difficult. Anyway, let’s remember this lesson so that we can handle similar situations better in the future. Thanks!
We voted for Additional funds for one year, 6 months from available funds, Liquidation of RWAs and STEP, New election at $86,581 per year, Abstain—in that order. Liabilities must be paid in correspondence with the dollar amount elected upon passing of proposals. There is no need to return to ground zero, so the continuation with Steakhouse is prudent.
Vote: (1st) Additional funds for one year, (2nd) 6 months from available funds, (3rd) New election at $86,581 per year, (4th) Liquidation of RWAs and STEP, (5th) Abstain
Several DAO members raised concerns about the lack of foresight in managing ARB volatility and converting it to USD. This is a recurrent problem and must be addressed in the future. As @Frisson mentioned, we should have better plans in place to manage currency fluctuations and create buffer zones in our budget. The conversation around using ARB as the standard currency, as @thedevanshmehta noted, also continues to evolve, but there are valid concerns about the liquidity and volatility of ARB in relation to USD.
In conclusion, while mistakes were made in the budgeting process, securing additional funds for the one-year tenure is the most practical solution, ensuring the continuity of the STEP program without unnecessary delays or disruptions. It also provides an opportunity to learn from these challenges and improve our budgeting and treasury management processes moving forward.
Voted For - makes total sense to support an existing budget that was agreed upon.
The issues that many DAO programs are running into around the dependence on ARB price is something we need a longer term solve for (treasury management working group is tackling this) - and we should not slow down current initiatives because of the lack of that long term solve.
The ITU Blockchain Delegation support continuing with a 1-year tenure for Steakhouse Financial as STEP Program Manager. This option provides stability, enables better execution of long-term strategy, and maximizes returns from the $30M in RWA investments. The additional funding gap can be covered by RWA returns, ensuring sustainability. For these reasons, we voted (1st) Additional funds for one year, (2nd) 6 months from available funds, (3rd) New election at $86,581 per year, (4th) Abstain, (5th) Liquidation of RWAs and STEP.
I voted “New election at $86,581 per year”.
Spending in the DAO became out of control imho.
We have to take more care instead of increasing spendings out of the treasury.
Arbitrum has problems getting tracation and the token price is definitely one problem of this.
Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion and voted in the Snapshot poll.
As an update from our side, we have now signed our service contract and are awaiting confirmation regarding the funds’ deployment and the associated transaction data.
Looking forward to providing the first report soon!
