Voted in line with the TMC’s suggestion #3, expecting the team to go back and re-open applications for ARB strategies.
Full ranking: #3, #4, Abstain, #1, #2
1 Like
We vote for “#1 Deploy Both Strategies” as the first choice and #3, #2, #4, Abstain for the rest in order.
The selected partners, Karpatkey, Avantgarde (and Myso), and Gauntlet, have demonstrated strong track records in managing treasury assets in other DAOs. We believe they (Gauntlet only for stable) should be able to manage both stablecoin and ARB strategies to be executed with a focus on risk-adjusted returns and liquidity.
Regarding the stablecoin management, it’s very critical to carry out the strategies to start improving the sustainability of the DAO operations. Those three strategy proposals and their fee structures make sense to us.
Regarding the ARB management, while TMC has stated their stance on being risk averse to the ARB allocation itself, we agree with @Avantgarde on their view as we have reviewed and approved a similar proposal done in Compound, are also resonated with @karpatkey’s explanations and approach, and we strongly believe it’s worth trying out the proposed strategies to strengthen the DAO treasury.
Regarding the way of this voting being structured, we echo opinions from other delegates; we believe it should have at least two separate votes and better titles for both.
3 Likes
Our voting order goes as (#3, abstain, #4, #1, #2). We initially wanted this proposal to be split into two separate proposals that directed the TMC’s allocation for the Stablecoin strategy and Arbitrum strategy. We feel that Gauntlet and Karpatkey in particular are excellent partners, and the projected returns for the used Stablecoin protocols give confidence that outweighs the concerns of depegging that could occur. Our main opposition to the ARB strategy comes with the current market conditions of high volatility that is ongoing, and we believe it is not an appropriate time to implement the presented strategy in the proposal. We do think the ARB strategy has merit and can be successful, so a future vote in a few months or in comparatively stable market conditions would seem reasonable.
1 Like
voting Abstain, #4 Deploy Nothing, #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy, #1 Deploy Both Strategies, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy on the current offchain vote because I don’t agree with the chosen methodology to get consent from the DAO to decide this. As pointed out previously, the non-inclusion of other strategies in this recommendation is weird, merging everything in the same vote is weird, choosing to use ranked choice voting at the last minute is weird. Just too weird overall really.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We would recommend voting YES for the Stablecoin Allocation and NO for the ARB Allocation, aligning with the TMC’s recommendation. As mentioned by most of seperate vote for both the proposals would have been beneficial to avoid the confusion, but the feedback wasn’t implemented. Here’s the reasoning behind this decision.
Stablecoin Allocation (15M ARB) – Vote YES
. The stablecoin allocation is split evenly among three reputable partners (Karpatkey, Avantgarde & Gauntlet), ensuring balanced risk exposure and diversification. This reduces the likelihood of a single point of failure.
. The shortlisted partners have demonstrated clear execution plans, robust risk management frameworks, and realistic yield projections (8%–12% on average). Their strategies rely on well-established DeFi protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound, which are low-risk and aligned with DAO liquidity needs.
ARB Allocation (10M ARB) – Vote NO
. The ARB strategies lack clear operational details, particularly regarding liquidity for options, counterparty arrangements, and execution mechanisms. This introduces significant uncertainty and risk, especially for a large allocation like 10M ARB.
. The ARB strategies rely heavily on Myso and with the uncertain market conditions now the price of ARB going down the strategy would be very risky.
1 Like
Despite believing the DAI should deploy both strategies, I voted “abstain” to prevent any COI.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy,#4 Deploy Nothing,#1 Deploy Both Strategies, Abstain, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy in line with the TMC’s recommendation.
We acknowledge the concerns raised by most delegates(@jojo, @paulofonseca , @gfxlabs & others) regarding structuring this vote, suggesting that a multiple-choice format or separate proposals would have been preferable to Ranked-Choice Voting. However, as highlighted by many in this discussion and on Telegram, the need for swift execution takes precedence. Given that the desired outcome is unlikely to change regardless of the voting method, we have decided to #3 as our first choice instead of opting for “DO NOTHING”.
We shared similar concerns regarding the conversion of ARB at historic low, as @curia, @pedrob & others have pointed out and as we mentioned in the STEP v2 Tally Voting Rationale. However, we recognize that there is no universally ‘right’ time for conversion. Given that the ARB-to-stable conversion will take place over three months, we believe that any time is appropriate, as our primary objective is to cover the DAO’s dollar-denominated expenses.
We believe that Gauntlet, Karpatkey, and Avantgarde are the right choices for stablecoin management. We appreciated the research conducted by Karpatkey and Avantgarde before the launch of STEP v1, and their track record outside the DAO reinforces our confidence in this decision.
Regarding their fee model, we would have preferred more partners adopting a performance-based fee structure over a management fee model, as stablecoins can generate superior yields through active management, which should be incentivized accordingly. The current fee structure adopted by Gauntlet and Karpatkey may not optimize stablecoin performance—not due to a lack of expertise but rather a misalignment of incentives within the existing framework. As a result, the deal appears less likely to be a win-win for both parties.
Regarding the ARB Allocation Strategy, covered calls appear to be the right approach. However, there is a lack of clarity on how ARB will be reacquired once it hits the strike price and is converted to stablecoins.
We do not believe that current market conditions are unfavorable, as heightened volatility could potentially lead to higher yields for ARB. Given this, we look forward to the next set of recommendations and expect to see ARB generating stable yields for the treasury in the near future.
2 Likes
Entropy will be voting in favor of option #3 as the highest priority, per the TMC’s recommendation. Before voting, we wanted to state a potential COI: We wrote the initial Treasury Management v1.2 proposal and appointed the TMC members. Despite this, we feel this is a good starting point on the stablecoin portion of the allocation and the next 3-6 months will provide the DAO ample time to evaluate the results versus simple strategies like depositing directly into a lending market absent of treasury managers. In terms of the ARB onchain strategies, we hope the TMC reopens applications indefinitely until a formidable strategy is presented, and that they proceed to Snapshot when the time is appropriate to get those funds allocated.
1 Like
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. We’re voting for #3 Yes Stablecoin, No ARB strategy. Below the rationale:
I am voting against any deployment now. I believe that first of all, it creates pressure on the market and on the price of ARB, which will drop even more. Secondly, selling 15 million ARB at such a low price now is simply a real sin. Why wasn’t this done when the token price was $2? I think that when market conditions improve, then we can decide to sell 15 million tokens. But in no case below $2. We are shooting ourselves in the foot!
We waited 3 years until the token updated its minimums and now we want to sell them. Can’t we wait a little longer until the market takes off again?
I am voting definitely DEPLOY NOTHING.
DAOplomats voted for Deploying Both Strategies as our top option.
We understand the voting process could have been done better but maintain our initial support for deploying both strategies. We are satisfied with the answers from Avantgarde and Karpatkey concerning risk and also appreciate their openness in answering questions.
As we initially said, we would love to see ARB being put to work and see this as a great opportunity to.
1 Like
MY RANK CHOICE VOTING
I’m supporting “Deploy Both Strategies” as my top choice.
These allocations look like a good idea considering how much ARB we have, and the volatility of the market. Props to the TCM for getting this work done.
We’re talking about a very small percentage of our total treasury - 2.5% - this is a conservative risk to try to get a considerable yield. The teams chosen are AWESOME and have proven they know what they’re doing.
3 Likes
I’m voting for option 4, deploy nothing. The rationale lies in that, while the numbers might seem enticing to support this option, with yields of up to 20% in the case of Karpatkey, these are numbers that can be eclipsed by one wild market swing in crypto.
The risks of operating and all the procedures necessary for putting these strategies in practice, in my opinion, are not justified, given the very favorable perspectives that the crypto market has to keep growing soon. That’s why I believe that we should follow the path of less effort and maintain the holdings in Arbitrum if nothing is needed to be paid with these reserves.
This is my opinion for now and the near foreseeable future, given that Arbitrum is near its all-time lows, and we shouldn’t be putting any more selling pressure in a market that is only poised to go up in the future given the change of stance that the world is having on the crypto industry.
It took me a while to reach a decision on this proposal. However, after carefully weighing the pros and cons, I’ve decided to vote for option #3, as suggested by threesigma.
Many have already pointed this out, but I want to echo that we should have opted for two separate votes. I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
After careful consideration, we’ve decided to cast our vote in the following way:
- Deploy Nothing
- Only Deploy Stable Strategy
- Deploy Both Strategies
- Only Deploy ARB Strategy
- Abstain
The reason we’re voting in this way has less to do with the strategies themselves and more to do with the overall process of deciding on a strategy in the first place.
First off, as others have already pointed out, the vote itself shouldn’t be a ranked-choice voting, and each strategy should be voted on separately to allow for the full spectrum of choices. But the structure of the vote isn’t the main reason we’re voting against the proposal.
In our view, and especially since there has been plenty of discussion, debate, and questions/concerns in the comments above, we should go back to the drawing board. Reading through TMC’s recommendations and the input from Avantgarde and Karpatkey left us with more questions than answers, and we believe it’s the same for other delegates. If we are to vote on the recommendations we believe that they at least deserve more explanation on the rationale and overall approach.
Since there’s no rush to deploy the strategies, we’d be wise to discuss them more to ensure that all concerns are addressed and we exhaust all possible strategies, especially on the ARB allocation front.
1 Like
As token holders and representatives of token holders, we question how service providers can mitigate the price impact of selling 15 million ARB tokens, given the token’s decline over the past year across various market conditions. We strongly believe that converting to stablecoins is not appropriate in the current context and does not serve the interests of stakeholders. Deploying ARB alone in large quantities offers little yield advantage over simply holding ARB in a wallet. Therefore, we will vote for the “deploy nothing” option as our preferred choice.
Voting 4,Abstain,3,2,1
I think this needs to be split into two proposals. I understand the initial thinking but after feedback early on in the process I’m not sure why that wasn’t addressed. The call didn’t lead me to believe those running the vote understood why people were pushing back on this which is concerning. I also don’t understand why if the TMC recommends a Yes for Stables and No for ARB why this is all combined. It’s just an odd process.
2 Likes
I am voting for the “deploy nothing” option in Snapshot.
From my point of view, the committee was established to provide recommendations on treasury management strategies. I don’t understand why they are including options that they don’t fully support. If the TMC recommends voting NO on the ARB strategy due to risk management concerns, then why include it as a voting option? I believe this undermines the purpose of having the TMC evaluate and recommend treasury management strategies to the DAO.
I also agree with other delegates’ comments on using the ranked choice voting. This methodology is inappropriate for non mutually exclusive options and it creates a bias toward implementing strategies that may not have majority support.
As stated in the this week’s proposal discussion call, if the “deploy nothing” option is selected in the first rank, the TMC would propose a different set of strategies. This would provide an opportunity to the TMC to present only strategies they fully endorse and believe to be the best recommendations while also applying appropriate voting methodologies.
I voted for ‘Only Deploy Stable Strategy’ followed by1, 4, 2, and Abstain.
After discussing the proposal with Juan, the Treasurer of Cooperative Kleros, we concluded that moving forward with the Stable Strategy is the best option for the DAO. We would have appreciated more detailed information about how this strategy will be implemented, but we trust Gauntlet, Karpatkey, and Avantgarde—teams with excellent track records—to execute it effectively, using a TWAP and appropriate timing.
That said, as many delegates have noted, it would have been preferable to split this into two separate votes. We hope to see a similar adjustment in the next TMC proposals.