After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We would like to thank @Entropy for facilitating this proposal. We genuinely believe it is a step in the right direction concerning Treasury Management. The issues of Service Provider Shortfalls and the treasury’s inactive assets are matters that need to be addressed promptly:
- Regarding Service Provider Shortfalls: This will avoid going through Tally to cover differences arising from ARB volatility, providing SPs with additional assurance that Arbitrum DAO can meet the agreed compensation. We believe this shouldn’t be taken lightly, as it represents an added level of “legal certainty” for SPs engaging with the DAO (and as with everything, if the risk is lower, pricing improves).
- Concerning the treasury’s ETH: The opportunity cost of doing nothing with it is immense. We are eager to see the committee’s recommendations on how to invest the money, emphasizing that the primary guideline should be “Safety First”. This would prioritize efficient alternatives with the best possible risk/reward ratio, i.e., those offering higher yields with minimal smart contract risks.
Despite these two solutions, there is still much to be done in establishing an integral plan that encompasses all implemented proposals in this vertical (STEP, AVI, GCP, etc.). We agree that the OpCo could serve as a structure to align these initiatives, ensuring a unified Treasury Management strategy.
Regarding the proposed Council structure
- Agree with the separation into two distinct councils because the nature of the tasks differs. (choosing Treasury Managers vs choosing protocols invest ETH)
- We are not fans of the pre-selected committees. While we understand that, given the specific qualifications required of the members, it may seem optimal, we believe the DAO might be missing out on conducting its own RFP (which could open opportunities and optimize costs, despite being slower). This also raises concerns about how the OpCo should establish its negotiation processes in the future. For instance, if a service is required, ideally, the cost should have been consulted/negotiated with three or more SPs or potential committee members. We would like to know if a similar process was conducted at least privately during this pre-selection.
- Before voting on this proposal in Tally, we would like to inquire whether any of the pre-selected members have any potential conflicts of interest that we should be aware of. This is crucial to ensuring adherence to the Code of Conduct, even though it is not a position subject to elections.