The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted AGAINST.
First, we agree that treasury assets should be allocated to generate yield and/or support ecosystem growth. However, we share other delegates’ view that the strategy remains unclear and that it is not evident how Entropy plans to utilize these assets. It is also surprising to see the underperformance of the allocations justified as “ecosystem support,” especially given that the opposite was emphasized during discussions around the previous allocation.
Furthermore, we echo other delegates’ concerns about Entropy’s lack of clear communication regarding allocations and the underlying strategy —both retrospectively and for this request. Even direct requests for additional information have gone unanswered (1, 2).
This lack of communication is concerning: the DAO lacks insight into the rationale behind key decisions. Entropy is not investing private assets; it is allocating DAO assets as a service provider to the DAO. The DAO should have full visibility into decision-making and strategy - both to provide feedback and to ensure continuity if responsibility is ever transferred to another provider. Currently, the DAO observes outcomes but not the strategy that produced them; if a new manager is appointed, we risk repeating the same mistakes.
In the past, we tentatively supported several programs and requested additional details after approval, but those details never materialized. Therefore, we are voting against this proposal.
However, we want to reiterate that this is not a vote against the idea of allocating idle funds, but rather a vote against this particular implementation proposal in the current context. We are happy to revisit our position and support similar proposals once communication with the DAO improves and more details on the strategy are provided.