I support the lead of the commission and will be voting in favor of the stable strategy without supporting the Arbitrum ones. I believe we have strong providers for the stable options. Would like to highlight that if there wasn’t a suitable strategy for ARB, it’s possible that the risk guidelines weren’t clear enough for the protocols that applied.
I’m looking forward to having the cash account for the DAO with the ARB fluctuation, as it will make things much easier for us.
The only thing I don’t understand is why we used ranked-choice voting for this decision since it seems to overcomplicate things unnecessarily.
The proposal could use a better labeling as “Proposal” to get more delegate engagement during the feedback period.
I’m voting NO on the Stablecoin Strategy and YES on the ARB Strategy.
Why I’m Voting NO on Stablecoin Conversion
I trust all 3 candidates to do a good job and I also believe in having a stable strategy plan but the timing to sell ARB into stablecoins is terrible. Trump is likely to deliberately decrease the dollar’s value before negotiating the massive government debt that’s coming due. This is basic leverage in negotiations - devalue what you owe before you pay it back.
Why I’m Voting YES on ARB Strategy
I’ll be voting in favor of the ARB strategy tho still poor risk-reward on the board specially from Karpatkey 20% its quite low but I’ve seen the great work they are doing on ENS and I believe they are playing it safe which its cool. I’m confident on both candidates to play DeFi and bring success to ARB. I would like more transparency on what its going to be done but competence had been shown and we can trust, they are putting reputation at stake.
The voting options could definitely be better—it was a bit frustrating of how to vote it
First of all, the 3 chosen providers make sense. They have solid experience and a good track record in other DAOs I’m involved in.
With ARB’s price volatility, I know picking just one strategy isn’t easy. I lean toward deploying both, but only if we reassess in 3 months to ensure it’s the right move.
This choice isn’t just about market swings. Like other delegates, I see it this way:
Thanks for all the work put together and finding the right partners to do the deployments.
First, I would like to point out that the vote is not that straightforward for me. We should have a clear yes/no option for each strategy. I’m not sure what I’m exactly trying to communicate if, for example, I choose “deploy both strategies” in third place.
After reading all the previous comments, I’ve decided to vote in favor of both strategies. Although I’m generally inclined to vote against proposals that might create downside market pressure, I believe the stablecoin strategy is necessary. I also want to echo @JoJo’s comments about supporting stakeholder protocols within our ecosystem.
The voting is confusing and includes two proposals that should have been separated in my opinion.
As I like one part but totally disagree with the other I have to vote against everything and thus voting “Deploy nothing” as primary choice.
I agree with many points, but especially with the part about splitting the votes into two parts.
Many DAOs have this practice of mixing one good proposal with another, questionable one.
This calls into question the good part and the delegates have to compromise, which is not at all necessary.
So here too - the strategies of stablecoins and ARB are completely unrelated to each other - why not make different votes?
I will be voting YES on both options or mainly supporting the #1 Deploy Both Strategies option on Snapshot. The rest of my RCV will be: #3, 2#, Abstain, #4, in that order.
First, my reasoning for supporting the ARB strategy is that selling pressure FUD isa bit overblown given what the market already dumps on its own naturally. Also, while finding proper insurance is a tough ask, I think the TMC’s numbers have been laid out sufficiently well for us to back this option to alleviate current downside.
Regarding the stablecoin strategy, I believe the same applies here. The TMC is not proposing anyting out of this world that the most finance saavy here don’t do already to some degree. Optimizing and testing out these strategies is key so that we can deploy them quicker moving forward. Yes, there’s a inherent risk to both, but we’ll never be able to fully cancel those risks out and we also have to consider the opportunity cost for not implementing either proposal.
gm, I voted FOR on deploying the Stable Strategy only as recommended.
However, I have some questions and comments:
Can @karpatkey / @Avantgarde provide concrete examples of what liquidity management for stablecoin pairs actually involves?
In my ignorance, the activity seems extremely limited beyond initial capital deployment and, considering custodiality risk still remains with the Foundation, I struggle to justify a traditional full 0.5%/10% fee.
I was also very disappointed to see no meaningful proposal for the use of ARB.
We as a DAO must encourage ARB-focused strategies and identify/create yield sources for our native token.
Yes ARB staking is coming, which will help, but I believe there are already opportunities today for single-sided ARB positions that support the Arbitrum ecosystem (Arraki’s PALM, for example).
As others have expressed, the goal should be to support Arbitrum-native protocols even when significant yield isn’t available.
I voted FOR, with “#3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy” as the top choice, and “#1 Deploy both” as the second choice. As noted in the today’s Open Discussion of Proposals call, stablecoins are needed in our treasury to pay, for example, service providers.
I trust that TMC partners will be able to convert ARB to stablecoins in a way that least impacts the price. If service providers are paid in ARB instead, they will simply sell it on the market which is the least preferable way of converting ARB to stablecoins.
This is why it’s better if ARB-to-stablecoin conversion is done through an initiative such as TMC, which should affect price less than just dumping ARB on the market.
Btw, next time I suggest that you make a better title for the proposal. I imagine there may be some other TMC recommendations in the future, so you could have at least named it “TMC Recommendation 1”, or “TMC Recommendation March 2025”.
I want to point out that this proposal started it’s initial version without mentioning that it would use Ranked Choice Voting methodology for it’s offchain vote on Snapshot, and then last Thursday, when the vote was published on Snapshot, it was launched with Ranked Choice Voting methodology, and the forum post was edited to add this sentence:
As I said in governance call today, this type of proposal should not use Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting should only be used for votes where the vote options are mutually exclusive. In this case, they are not, because “Deploy both” is cumulative with “Deploy ARB” and “Deploy Stable”. This vote should have just been a multiple choice vote.
I am voting against the proposed allocations (both NO) on tempcheck.
Thank you very much for the proposal and to the providers for all the explanations given.
That being said, I cannot overlook the inconsistencies pointed out by the delegates. We need to aim for higher-quality processes. Since there is no urgency, I believe this snapshot should be canceled. It would be better to proceed with a correct one starting this Thursday, no ranked choice and separating both the strategies and the service providers into distinct options.
Additionally, a crucial comment that went unnoticed is the one from GFX:
The way this vote has been proposed is strange. I understand it may have been done to avoid not recommending anything at all, but I think it doesn’t make sense and should be reviewed. Either all stable strategies are proposed (both recommended and not), or only the recommended ones are included, leaving out the ARB strategies. But this middle ground feels odd and makes me uncomfortable with the selection process.
Thanks for pointing it out, price action has not been great lately.
Jokes aside, given that you have stated the following—a statement with which I agree:
I would like to hear the TMC’s opinion on the price action of the ARB token and the rationale behind continuing to dump it for stables. Are the (governance) risks of further price declines not being considered when designing these strategies? Over the past three months, the token has lost 70% of its value, much more than ETH, which is down 50% in the same period. Or on the other hand, given that the price is at historical lows, isn’t it worth considering that even a slight recovery of the token could surpass any yield offered by stablecoins?
Lastly, regarding the ARB strategies, and in line with @JoJo’s comment, I believe the approach needs to be redefined to allow for joint proposals with protocols. This should involve designing strategies where protocols can also offer incentives to participate—whether through liquidity provision, user incentives, or fee reductions of some kind, etc. In other words, opening the door to joint proposals where both the DAO and the protocols contribute, ensuring mutual benefits.
I support Option #3 —solely deploying the stablecoin strategy.
The current stablecoin allocation plan, through collaborative management by diversified partners (Karpatkey, Avantgarde & Myso, Gauntlet), not only achieves risk diversification and yield balance (with expected annualized returns of 8%-12%) but also ensures the liquidity and security of DAO funds via a transparent execution framework.
We will vote to support only the stable strategy as recommended by TMC. The stablecoin proposals are solid, and splitting funds equally among Karpatkey, Avantgarde & Myso, and Gauntlet ensures diversified risk and balanced exposure. We believe it’s reasonable to pay management fees to Karpatkey and Avantgarde, given their expertise in actively managing liquidity on platforms like Uniswap v3 and Camelot v3. Our calculations indicate that the net yield from this strategy would be roughly 7.8% to 13.4% on the $15M allocation,translating to a net profit between about $1.16M and $2M. However, given that ARB was originally around $1 and is now roughly $0.38, converting 15M ARB at these levels could cause significant selling pressure and panic among holders. For example, if ARB were to recover to $0.50, the increased asset value could potentially yield an extra $5M, far exceeding the modest yield from the stable strategy. This upside opportunity suggests that holding ARB until market conditions improve might be far more beneficial than selling now.
We agree that there isn’t an immediate rush, yet the original Tally vote set clear deadlines. So while urgency isn’t pressing, we still need to keep the momentum going. However, had ARB been converted to stablecoins when the proposal was approved, we’d have seen higher stablecoin values, around $0.90 compared to $0.33/ARB.
To provide some context: over the past six months, approximately 11 million ARB tokens have been sold daily on Uniswap to USDC or USDT (Dune query: https://dune.com/queries/4775168/7921551).
On average, if service providers TWAP-sell on the open market, that’s about 166k tokens per day. We believe this level of selling isn’t likely to create significant additional pressure unless one views it as a negative market signal. Moreover, there are alternative methods for converting assets, like options or liquidity provisioning.
As highlighted on yesterday’s governance call, the stablecoin reserve is specifically designated to cover DAO expenses and service provider contract shortfalls, not to distribute grants.
As noted on yesterday gov call, we want to remind yet again that:
This stablecoin reserve […] will be used to cover DAO dollar-denominated expenses and service provider contract shortfalls. This cash-like balance should not be used to give out grants, but rather to pay out service providers that demand dollars.
We understand this, but please also understand that our approved mandate is clear and it is not to make directional bets on asset performance.
On this point, providers like Avantgarde and Karpatkey have already joined forces with Myso for their options strategy proposal, you can see their proposals as joint proposals. That said, we do share your sentiment. It’s been a bit disappointing not to see more proposals coming from the community, builders, or protocols in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Voted (#3, #1, #2, #4, Abstain): I reviewed the proposal and decided to vote as suggested by TMC (#3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy).
However, I do think this kind of vote should be split into two different votes. It is very confusing and could result in missed voting unintentionally.
Since this topic was not listed under Proposals, it got way less attention before this was pushed to the vote. I hope the feedback collected during the snapshot phase will be regarded once this hits the Tally vote.
I also agree with the opinion that this methodology (ranked voting) was not appropriate for this kind of vote. It should be strictly For, Against, or Abstain choices. Current ranked voting may lead to wrongly interpreted results.
I agree with most members here—the voting choices could have been structured better.
I’m voting for Deploy Nothing as my first choice. While the Stablecoin Strategy makes sense, this isn’t the right time. I’d be on board with it once ARB’s price recovers.
As for the ARB Strategy, it feels uncertain and risky. If the market improves, it could be a good move, but not right now.
I also appreciate TMC’s recommendation to implement the Stablecoin Strategy. They’re the experts, and their insights matter. That said, the snapshot proposal felt a bit pushy, like it was steering towards one outcome. Just a thought.
We appreciate the feedback @maxlomu and would like to address the concerns raised regarding liquidity management, fees, and the ARB-only strategy.
Liquidity Management & Justification of Fees
Liquidity management for stablecoin pairs extends beyond its initial deployment, it requires active monitoring, risk assessment, and rebalancing to optimise returns while maintaining flexibility.Our approach incorporates: non-custodial asset management infrastructure (Safe + Zodiac Roles Modifier), combined with 24/7 risk monitoring and response (continuous surveillance using proprietary softwares), semi-automated rebalancing and execution (allowing rapid adjustments, including emergency liquidity withdrawals, unstaking, debt repayments, asset swaps, etc).Unlike passive management, this infrastructure enables real-time decision-making to rebalance positions based on yield, volatility, and risk factors, all while respecting our internal risk management framework. This active oversight and tooling justify the proposed fee structure, as they ensure capital efficiency, security, and responsiveness to market conditions
ARB-Focused Strategy
We acknowledge the need to maximise ARB utilisation within the treasury. While ARB staking is on the horizon, we have proposed several strategies that we think are well suited to accommodate to different market conditions. These strategies allow the DAO to maintain ARB exposure while enhancing capital efficiency and supporting ARB native protocols such as Dolomite, Camelot or GMX, to name a few.
Additionally, we recognise the importance of supporting Arbitrum-native protocols and are open to exploring solutions such as single-sided ARB strategies inline with the DAO’s broader objectives.We welcome further discussion on how to refine these approaches while maintaining a disciplined risk management framework and ensuring sustainable returns for the treasury.
Even though the voting choices could have been structured better, Im voting For #3 YES, deploy the Stable Strategy /// NO, do not deploy the ARB Strategy then abstain, #4, 1#, #2
Because I trust this proposal can execute the conversion succesfully and I think it is prudent to sit out on this allocation for now. Also I think this is a low-risk move and I trust that all this procedure will be transparent enough to se the hopefully positive outcomes.
We see this vote in good part as a decision on whether the TMC should take on a bit of additional risk and support projects in its ecosystem.
Based on that consideration, we’re voting for #3 (favour of stables strategies but voting against arb strategies).
