I also bought the 804.770,97 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote For in this onchain proposal Arbitrum One Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Arbitrum One
2 Likes
We would like to confirm that!
This perfectly describes our voting rationale on the proposal for Treasury Management - we make our voting power available to anyone who is interested and hence we voted in favor of the proposal.
Thank you @paulofonseca for your support and we kindly invite anyone to participate in auctions or buy our voting power instantly for the future proposals.
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
Having received confirmation from @Entropy on the possible COIs, we see no reason to change our vote regarding Snapshot.
Here our previous rationale.
We hope that this is the first of many steps by the DAO towards a comprehensive plan, bringing together all Treasury related initiatives and that through OpCo the DAO will finally have its Annual Budget.
I will vote FOR onchain (Tally) after the concerns on pre selected council was addressed in the call and a background check was done by entropy.
gm, voted FOR.
I believe the proposal effectively addresses key treasury challenges through a structured and phased approach, and clear goals.
Splitting growth and treasury management into tracks makes sense, and tying compensation to milestones ensures accountability.
While pre-selected members aren’t ideal, I trust the selected team members for the first phase. Future elections would improve transparency, but this is a solid plan to move forward.
Voted For: For the Snapshot, I voted Against due to a lack of clear metrics, a preselected committee, and an impact on ARB price due to converting to stables. After attending a call with the team and feedback on the forum, I decided to vote For on the Tally vote. The biggest change of mind was that after reviewing the committee candidates and general trust in Entropy to execute. Having a clear strategy for our Treasury is the essence here and a step in the right direction. Happy to see we have a strong team to execute on it.
After much consideration, I have decided to change my vote and support this proposal on Tally.
Although I do not fully agree with the approach of the two committees or the short-term perspective of the proposal, it represents a step toward the DAO’s long-term sustainability. Additionally, the OpCo proposal is already under vote, and I expect it will eventually take charge of this treasury management initiative.
I would like to reiterate a recommendation I shared in my feedback:
Finally,
I understand this, but once the structure and its members are defined, it will be very difficult for the DAO to reject their recommendations. In practice, the management of programs is entirely delegated to those appointed, both in execution and decision-making (as we have seen on several occasions during the LTIPP, the B.STIP, and the STEP). For instance, during the LTIPP, the DAO chose not to vote on bounties due to a lack of context and a preference to leave that decision to the council, even though the proposal explicitly stated that it was a DAO prerogative.
I would have preferred the approval of guidelines that align not only with the interests of the DAO but also with the broader Ethereum ecosystem. I am skeptical that the details of the fund distribution will be thoroughly discussed. Btw, I agree that this should be the case—that’s precisely why the members of the working groups are assigned. However, it would have been better if it were done with clear guidelines.
1 Like
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain the voting and rationale made at the Snapshot stage and also look forward to OpCo being in charge of the initiative going forward. We also echo @pedrob 's points on “being very difficult for THE DAO to reject recommendations from the selected council members” and would still like to see a more automated solution for the treasury management with a clarified and articulated IPS being agreed on by the DAO.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR in this proposal. Bellow the rationale:
I’ve decided to support this proposal on Tally as well. As I previously mentioned, I believe it’s crucial to implement professional treasury management, enhancing Arbitrum’s long-term sustainability and competitiveness.
I think that with this proposal we are laying the groundwork for more strategic investments in the Arbitrum ecosystem, having the potential to provide both stability and growth for the ecosystem.
Thanks @Entropy , you have my full support here!
Based on the proposal’s updates and clarifications, we will vote FOR on Tally.
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: Treasury Management V1.2](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2474535158363981241)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
We’re voting FOR this proposal on Tally, recognizing it as a necessary first step toward professional treasury management. The committee structure and milestone-based compensation provide proper oversight, though future iterations should transition to DAO-elected positions to reduce centralization around Entropy. Hoping that converting ARB to USD shifts volatility risk to the OTC market.
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.
Following our support for this proposal in the temperature check phase we are voting FOR this proposal in the onchain vote.
1 Like
Voting has ended!
===============
[Treasury Management V1.2](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2474535158363981241)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 183.79M of 126.01M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 153.25M (81.7%) |
| **Against** | | 3.84M (2.0%) |
| **Abstain** | | 30.54M (16.3%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
We are voting FOR on Tally. This proposal addresses the issue of underutilised treasury assets and adds an extra layer of security against market volatility by creating a stablecoin reserve and deploying ETH holdings into productive strategies.
However, in future iterations, we believe committee members should be elected with active participation from the DAO. This should allow for more transparency and ensure that the members elected are those that the majority of the DAO truly agrees on. That being said, having compensation being tied to milestones achieved is a step in the right direction, as it promotes accountability and ensures that the appointed members are incentivised to deliver measurable outcomes.
Establishing two management tracks creates a structured approach to optimising resource allocation. The treasury management track should address the immediate need to reduce volatility risks and make sure service providers are paid reliably. The growth track would allow for a forward-looking perspective through building partnerships and investing in ETH-backed strategies.
Ultimately, This is a good first step and a solid foundation for improving the DAO’s financial management and operational efficiency. Improvements should be analysed and addressed in the next iteration.
FOR this, idle funds need to be liquid, strategies to maintain diversification and drive growth. As we move into the global rate cut mechanism, on-chain yields may be more attractive. It is in line with the long-term healthy development of Arbitrum and the interests of all users of Arbitrum. By deploying infrastructure and service providers to implement on-chain strategies for ARB and stablecoins, TMC’s mission is to indirectly support the growth of the ecosystem by leveraging the Arbitrum protocol, which is in line with my thinking. In the future, I would like to have better employees, more transparent elections, and less expensive salaries.
Voted “For” on Tally too, with the same reason with Snapshot vote 