Entropy is again acknowledging its COI as a member of the ATMC. We will be voting FOR the Transfer of 8500 ETH on Tally as it is our belief that it’s of the utmost importance for the DAO to begin deploying these funds and earning yield.
Thank you very much @Entropy for hosting the call - the presented vision for IPS is promising.
Do you have any updates on the document? During the call, you mentioned that you expected to present it to OAT for approval at the beginning of last week. If that’s the case, will the DAO be able to review the document sometime this week?
Can we expect that, for each allocation you make, we’ll be able to see your assumptions regarding these three factors? This would allow the DAO to retain and build on the learnings from those decisions.
1 Like
As ITU Blockchain, we voted FOR this proposal, and we share the authors’ view that putting idle ETH to work via the ATMC is the right move now. It helps protect principal, earn conservative yield, and improve DRIP-period liquidity without selling ARB. We support a diversified approach using mature venues to reduce utilization spikes and slippage. We also encourage clear position limits, provider diversification, and simple benchmark-based reporting to keep execution disciplined.
Hey @krst thank you very much for the comment. The IPS document will be posted by the end of the week and will be linked under this proposal.
Thank you for the answer, I’m looking forward to it.
Could you please also refer to the second part of my question?
I would like to understand the practical implications of having those assessment factors.
The IPS is now posted in the forum. The proposal here contains all the information needed to make an informed decision. It outlines the rationale, opportunity cost, structure, safeguards, and deployment process in detail. The IPS is a supporting document designed to provide deeper ongoing insight into how the ATMC operates. We’ll continue to share performance data and allocation breakdowns through our normal reporting cadence, and of course incorporate delegate feedback as we go. But the core decision here is whether to activate 8,500 idle ETH.
The default state of the ATMC, through its monthly and quarterly updates, is full transparency. That said certains elements of deployments (especially in strategic growth allocations) will remain confidential only when necessary, for greater DAO interests. This is outlined in section 7.5.2. of the IPS.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the Tally voting.
We appreciate that the team published an Investment Policy Statement. The IPS adds structure and explains how the ATMC will think about benchmarks, opportunity cost, and growth versus yield decisions. Still, the IPS does not resolve the two core reasons we opposed the proposal on Snapshot: underperformance and no clear implementation plan.
The current and historic allocations have not shown that they beat simple staking once fees and costs are included. We need a clear, side-by-side net yield comparison that shows expected returns after custody fees, management fees, gas, bridge costs, and any other expenses. Without that net comparison, we cannot judge the true opportunity cost of moving 8,500 ETH.
The proposal still lacks a concrete allocation plan. We expect a detailed list of target protocols or a phased tranche plan with checkpoints and OAT sign-offs. We will not support transferring a material sum first and deciding specific allocations later.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
From our perspective, it would be beneficial for the DAO to consider a model that functions on a recurring basis rather than relying on a single transfer, as @karpatkey suggested.
To make this effective, it is essential that any investment or treasury strategy be presented with full clarity on both risks and associated costs. This transparency is necessary not only for accountability but also for allowing delegates and tokenholders to understand what is being implemented and why. It would be helpful to know whether the team already has a structured plan for these funds.
Regarding yield, we agree with @0xDonPepe. The DAO should aim for returns that are competitive while still maintaining low risk exposure.
From a governance and security standpoint, we share cp0x’s concern:
We understand that full DAO level approval for every operational step can slow execution. However, there must be a balance so the process does not become closed off or almost self referential. For this proposal to move forward in a final form, we believe it requires a more explicit description of responsibilities, oversight, and safeguards.
We remain positive about the overall direction.
Thanks (again) for the proposal.
After my comment and the Snapshot vote, I didn’t see any response. Of course, I don’t necessarily mean a direct reply to me, I have no such expectations!! However, I carefully read through the entire discussion that followed my comment, and still couldn’t find any point that could help me address my concerns. On the contrary, I noticed even more concerns being raised by a lot of delegates, like @Euphoria’s rationale, which also increased my anxiety over this proposal.
This personally leads me not to support this proposal, and since Abstain (which was my initial choice) votes count, I’ll be voting Against in the Tally vote. It’s not that I overlook the positive aspects of the proposal, but compared to the available alternatives, I personally believe it’s not the best option.
2 Likes
gm, I voted FOR on this proposal. The priority right now is putting the idle ETH to work in a way that benefits the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I still believe clearer communication on the actual strategy and future allocation of the deployed ETH would be beneficial.
However, I understand the perspective of the Entropy team expressed in their IPS (thanks for publishing it). I hope that in the future we can find a middle ground to better understand (and possibly influence) how the actual allocation will work.
Thanks
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR.
We want to start by thanking Entropy for introducing and implementing the Investment Policy Statement (IPS). This addition marks a significant improvement in the DAO’s treasury management framework, bringing more structure, transparency, and accountability to how funds are managed.
The IPS establishes clear standards for reporting and performance evaluation that the ATMC must now fulfill. It addresses many of the concerns previously raised about the lack of visibility and reporting , providing a well-defined foundation for responsible asset management.
We also believe this IPS should become a standard requirement for any future initiative involving DAO-managed funds. A consistent framework like this will help ensure accountability, comparability, and clarity across all treasury-related programs, ultimately strengthening DAO-wide governance practices.
With IPS in place we feel comfortable with approving the transfer of DAO funds for management.