We invite applications to monitor the service providers selected under the Stable Treasury Endowment Program for diversifying 35 million ARB from our treasury into stable, liquid and yield earning assets.
Applications will be accepted until 15th May, after which we will summarize information on each provider and upload to Snapshot for the DAO to vote on.
To make an application, please follow these steps.
Answer all the questions listed in the RFP below and create a separate topic in this category, with the title [(Provider Name) STEP Program Manager] . In case you run into issues uploading links or photos to the forum, please get in touch with me @TheDevanshMehta on Telegram or post in our public group .
If there are certain details you do not want to or cannot upload publicly on the forum, you may share them privately with a dedicated email address we have setup for this purpose rwa@dao.arbitrum.foundation . We will work with you on creating the final public version that will be uploaded to Snapshot. Even if you submit certain details on email, you must answer all questions in the forum and indicate which questions have been sent via email.
After you have created a separate topic with your application, reply under this post and link to your application.
If you are facing issues answering a particular question or it is not relevant, you may skip answering them. Don’t hesitate to get in touch for any help you need!
I. Applicant information
Name
Address (Headquarters)
City, State, Postal Code
Country
Website
Primary contact Name
Title
Country
Email, Telegram, Forum, & other methods of contact
II. Applicant Details
Please describe your company
Please give a bio of key team members and their relevant experience. Also mention the name and bio of the point of contact that will engage with Arbitrum DAO if selected. References are encouraged
Total team size
Number of Years in Operation
III. Applicant Performance
Past experience if any for performing each of the roles and responsibilities described in the appendix (Divide your answer into three sections corresponding to the 3 parts in the appendix).
Describe any conflicts of interest your entity, its investors or key personnel may have with any potential service providers selected under the program
Under what situations would you make a recommendation for Arbitrum to withdraw its assets from a selected service provider to fulfill each aspect of the outlined scope in the appendix?
Please list any experience your firm has in working with decentralized organizational structures
What is the value of assets monitored by your entity?
Can you explain how risk management (investment and operational) is being done for assets under monitoring?
Describe the content, format and preparation process of performance reports. This should include details of interest earned and status of total assets. Provide a sample if available.
IV. Applicant Pricing
Provide a copy of your standard contract, or one similar to what is being proposed here.
Comprehensive pricing breakdown inclusive of the full scope of services requested
Terms of fee payment such as upfront vs monthly costs
Approximate percentage of your annual budget that this service contract would constitute ? (eg: if annual expenses are $100 and proposed contract is $10, then 10% is the answer).
V. Appendix: Roles and Responsibilities of STEP Program Manager
Cashflow & Accrual Monitoring: Enable the Arbitrum Foundation to easily ensure that the Arbitrum Treasury receives timely payments or accruals. If payments are delayed or incongruent with stated rates, Arbitrum can take appropriate action (e.g. inquiry, divestment, etc). Specific functionality includes:
Initial capital contribution and redemption tracking
Track and notify interest accrual or payment amounts for each investment
Ensure expected interest accrual or payment frequencies match service providers’ documentation
Underlying Asset Monitoring: Validate that service providers are investing in expected underlying assets and risk exposures. If nonstandard assets are being included in a provider’s portfolio, Arbitrum will be informed and can take appropriate action.
Report on service providers’ underlying assets and reserves
Provide portfolio statistics and risk analytics
Report % of product AUM that pertains to Arbitrum’s investment
Operations & Counterparty Monitoring: Aggregates nonquantitative information to regularly inform Arbitrum of key structural information and material document changes and administer redemption tests.
Collate service provider financial and audit reports
Track underlying service provider changes (e.g. custodian or broker changes, change in 3rd party auditors, change in onchain addresses used for flow of funds)
Track material changes in provider terms
Administer Redemption Tests (i.e. “Fire Drills”) to test for provider redemption timeliness.
Communication with the DAO on the governance forum for questions pertaining to the program
Any other duties that may arise which are necessary for success
Thanks to all who have applied for the position. I will be in touch to prepare short summaries on each applicant for upload on snapshot. We expect the DAO vote to select a program manager to go live on Monday the 27th of May.
Based on feedback received, we have extended the application period to Monday 20th May , 1159 pm anywhere on earth time. We hope qualified providers use the extension to apply and give delegates more options to choose between
Vote is now live! Good luck to all applicants in the race.
We are also going to try organizing a google meet and/or twitter space for the program managers to present to voters. I’ll update here when we have dates finalized!
The following only represent my personal voting reasons, and does not represent the opinions of any protocol or entity that I might be part of, partner with or contribute in any form.
Voting for Steakhouse, with my full allocation.
After reviewing their application, they have the experience tied to the oversight of Maker which can’t be discounted; while other applicants, like avantgrade, are for sure strong candidates as well, to me the above is the key fact for my personal decision process.
On the cost: while, at first glance, steakhouse is technically the highest one in cost, is also the only entity providing a fixed costs regardless of the amount of protocols to oversee. Which means it might not be the most costly option; and, tbh, even if it was, I would gladly pay a delta of 50k out of a 50M program for proper oversight (1% more).
I believe they have the strongest experience working with many RWAs and crypto assets with tier 1 Web3 Protocols like Makr and Lido, giving them an edge for this role.
Thank you to all the candidates who applied for this role. We have decided to cast our vote 50% in favor of Avantgarde Finance and 50% in favor of Steakhouse Financial for the Arbitrum STEP Program Manager position.
Steakhouse Financial’s extensive experience with DAOs, advanced Arbitrum analytics, comprehensive monitoring, and proactive thought leadership align closely with the needs of the STEP program. Avantgarde Finance’s significant expertise in Web3, on-chain diversification strategies, and close work with top DeFi protocols also make them an excellent fit.
All applicants provided enough material to show that they would be a good fit for the role, and the ArbitrumDAO would be well served by any of them. So my approach was focused on cost x benefits.
I voted 100% for Avantgarde as their ask was reasonable, providing a variable cost attached with how many protocols they would have to monitor (as Particula and Bluechip also did). IMO this is a fairer budgeting.
In addition to that, I appreciate their work with DIVA, which highlight their monitoring knowledge.
@jameskbh stole my thunder. I’m going for 100% Avantgarde
Avantegarde came with a competitive ask and have the track record to execute in the role. I’ve seen them around the ecosystem from WAAAAY back in the day when they were Melonport, and I did a deepdive into their updated system when they proposed to ENS, so I trust them in this role.
Stakewise is also a great pick, and I’m sure they will get the job done if they take the role, I was going to give them a % of the vote but I found it off-putting that Steakhouse was on the selection committee… I guess its OK… but does make me worry about conflict of interest / insider advantage.
Thanks all for going through the providers individually to make a decision! Since program managers are accountable to the DAO and expected to make proposals for carrying forward the program, we want them to be responsive and engaging with the DAO directly.
Some quick clarifications;
We do not expect the committee to select more than 8 providers (it’ll likely be far less than even this higher end number). so all program manager applicants with variable pricing have capped it at 8, selecting more than this would not increase their costs. providing this additional detail since it got left out of snapshot.
For what its worth, the committee will be dissolving itself after recommendations are made and passed by the DAO. Only after the committees dissolution would the program manager role come into existence to take charge.
overall we were hard pressed to come up with actual conflicts between being both on the committee and a program manager. The most we could come up with in theory is they select providers that are easier to manage for reducing their monitoring cost, which didn’t feel too meaningful. Conflict of interest is also tempered by them being only 1 out of 5 voices. they have also declared their conflicts in the shortlist we prepared
I voted 100% for Steakhouse first because of their strong experience with DAOs, making it a good candidate. On the top of that, proven oversight with Maker is a good sign of their competence. Despite being the highest cost, their fixed pricing model and the value they offer make them a worthwhile choice.
I’m voting 100% FOR Stake House in the STEP Manager Elections.
Stake House is well-qualified to manage the STEP Program and support the success of the Arbitrum Treasury. They have extensive experience with DAOs, transparent reporting, a positive reputation, and strong risk management—crucial for the long-term success of the DAO.
Blockworks Research will be voting 50% FOR Steakhouse & 50% FOR Avantgarde.
Both entities have extensive experience in highly relevant roles as well as strong reputations with high-quality engagements. We don’t have concerns regarding Steakhouse already acting as a member of the STEP selection committee.
The providers’ relative pricing differences had minimal impact on our decision-making process as the Program Manager role is of high importance and is attached to a notable amount of responsibility. Meanwhile, the role’s cost is negligible in comparison to the program’s total size.
We vote 50% for Steakhouse and 50% for Avantgarde.
We chose Stakehouse because their extensive experience and track record stand out quite a bit. We believe the higher fee is justified with the outcomes that they should be able to bring.
We also chose Avantgarde because of their expertises and their balanced fee structure.
We believe both entities should be able to offer great services as the first Arbitrum STEP Program Manager.
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 want to start by saying that when we voted in favor of the STEP proposal, we understood that the working group driving the initiative would be responsible for choosing the right entity for the Program Manager role. We believe delegates, including L2BEAT, might not possess the relative expertise to properly assess the right candidate.
In addition, since the program manager will have to work closely with the Foundation, we thought it might have been a good idea for the Foundation to screen candidates to see who they would like to work with.
Regardless, before making a decision, we reviewed the applications and talked directly with all four applying teams to better understand their approach to the role and what they bring to the table. We also reached out to gather opinions of people working with candidates in the past. One thing that became apparent was that all four teams seemed to possess adequate experience and skills to fulfill the mandate of the STEP program manager role.
Ultimately, our decision boiled down to small details, which are attributed mostly to our personal preference and understanding rather than the capabilities of the applying teams. With that said, we decided to split our voting power in the following way: