This proposal has been worked on in collaboration with the entire STEP 2 Committee where consensus was reached on this proposed path forward.
The Arbitrum DAO held approximately $3.5 million in USDM, a yield-bearing stablecoin from Mountain Protocol. This treasury asset purchase was a part of the STEP 1 program. Following Anchorage Digital Acquiring Mountain and the announced wind-down of USDM, the Arbitrum Foundation has already redeemed the entirety of the DAO’s USDM position, which is now in USDC. This proposal reallocates the fully redeemed funds (~$3.5M USDC) to the STEP 2 budget.
This is a straightforward administrative action to ensure the assets allocated to STEP remain yield bearing. At an estimated 4.5% on $3.5M, the DAO is missing out on ~$13k per month while these funds sit in USDC. Given the extremely recent review of RWAs and acceptance of the STEP 2 allocation, this is a simple path forward that the committee believes should enable these assets to get to work in high-quality yield-bearing assets.
For further context, the STEP 2 budget has been partially liquidated, but some of the allocated ARB is still awaiting swapping. Additionally, none of the STEP 2 funds have been allocated yet (in progress).
This proposal, if passed via Snapshot with more votes For than Against, will enable the Arbitrum Foundation to move all funds redeemed from USDM into the previously approved STEP 2 allocation:
This proposal requires no additional funds from the DAO and will proceed to Snapshot Thursday June 5th.
Disclaimer The information provided in this proposal is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or advice to engage in any specific transaction, strategy, or investment. The information is presented "as is" without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Delegates should consult with professional advisors for specific guidance before making any financial, legal, or tax-related decisions. Use of this committee recommendation is entirely at your own risk.
This proposal has been worked on in collaboration with the entire STEP 2 Committee where consensus was reached on this proposed path forward.
The Arbitrum DAO held approximately $3.5 million in USDM, a yield-bearing stablecoin from Mountain Protocol. This treasury asset purchase was a part of the STEP 1 program. Following Anchorage Digital Acquiring Mountain and the announced wind-down of USDM, the Arbitrum Foundation has already redeemed the entirety of the DAO’s USDM position, which is now in USDC. This proposal reallocates the fully redeemed funds (~$3.5M USDC) to the STEP 2 budget.
This is a straightforward administrative action to ensure the assets allocated to STEP remain yield bearing. At an estimated 4.5% on $3.5M, the DAO is missing out on ~$13k per month while these funds sit in USDC. Given the extremely recent review of RWAs and acceptance of the STEP 2 allocation, this is a simple path forward that the committee believes should enable these assets to get to work in high-quality yield-bearing assets.
For further context, the STEP 2 budget has been partially liquidated, but some of the allocated ARB is still awaiting swapping. Additionally, none of the STEP 2 funds have been allocated yet (in progress).
This proposal, if passed via Snapshot with more votes For than Against, will enable the Arbitrum Foundation to move all funds redeemed from USDM into the previously approved STEP 2 allocation:
This proposal requires no additional funds from the DAO and will proceed to Snapshot Thursday June 5th.
Disclaimer The information provided in this proposal is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or advice to engage in any specific transaction, strategy, or investment. The information is presented "as is" without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Delegates should consult with professional advisors for specific guidance before making any financial, legal, or tax-related decisions. Use of this committee recommendation is entirely at your own risk.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/35?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/32?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/33?u=entropy
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/35?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/32?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/33?u=entropy
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
in my opinion this vote needs to reach a 3% non-constitutional quorum to be a legitimate DAO decision, and it makes total sense to do it. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/31?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/29?u=hawheik
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-107): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-107
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/28?u=zenithiaa
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/27
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/26?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/24?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/23?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/18
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/19?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/19?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/21?u=zeptimus
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/20?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/8?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/17?u=ezr3al
We support this asset management proposal and have no objections to a highly focused administrative operation.
Straightforward administrative task. Similar redeployments should be handled administratively with a veto window rather than a full governance cycle: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/15?u=pennblockchain
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
in my opinion this vote needs to reach a 3% non-constitutional quorum to be a legitimate DAO decision, and it makes total sense to do it. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/31?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/29?u=hawheik
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-107): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-107
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/28?u=zenithiaa
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/27
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/26?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/24?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/23?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/18
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/19?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/19?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/21?u=zeptimus
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/20?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/8?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/17?u=ezr3al
We support this asset management proposal and have no objections to a highly focused administrative operation.
Straightforward administrative task. Similar redeployments should be handled administratively with a veto window rather than a full governance cycle: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reallocate-redeemed-usdm-funds-to-step-2-budget/29335/15?u=pennblockchain
yes it should be reallocated asap. This is kind of a no brainer.
yes it should be reallocated asap. This is kind of a no brainer.
Smart treasury management means putting idle funds to work and this proposal does exactly that. With STEP 2 already approved and ready to deploy, reallocating the redeemed USDM (now USDC) into high-quality, yield-bearing assets ensures we’re not leaving money on the table.
📈 Let’s not let ~$13K/month in potential yield go to waste while we wait. This is a no-brainer move that aligns with the DAO’s goals of sustainability and strategic asset use.
Smart treasury management means putting idle funds to work and this proposal does exactly that. With STEP 2 already approved and ready to deploy, reallocating the redeemed USDM (now USDC) into high-quality, yield-bearing assets ensures we’re not leaving money on the table.
📈 Let’s not let ~$13K/month in potential yield go to waste while we wait. This is a no-brainer move that aligns with the DAO’s goals of sustainability and strategic asset use.
Full support from me, let’s make Arbitrum’s treasury as productive as its protocol. ✅
Smart treasury management means putting idle funds to work and this proposal does exactly that. With STEP 2 already approved and ready to deploy, reallocating the redeemed USDM (now USDC) into high-quality, yield-bearing assets ensures we’re not leaving money on the table.
📈 Let’s not let ~$13K/month in potential yield go to waste while we wait. This is a no-brainer move that aligns with the DAO’s goals of sustainability and strategic asset use.
Smart treasury management means putting idle funds to work and this proposal does exactly that. With STEP 2 already approved and ready to deploy, reallocating the redeemed USDM (now USDC) into high-quality, yield-bearing assets ensures we’re not leaving money on the table.
📈 Let’s not let ~$13K/month in potential yield go to waste while we wait. This is a no-brainer move that aligns with the DAO’s goals of sustainability and strategic asset use.
Full support from me, let’s make Arbitrum’s treasury as productive as its protocol. ✅
How will the STEP Committee (a) track and surface legal / regulatory developments across all RWA sleeves, and (b) package quarterly performance reports so delegates can quickly see what’s working and what isn’t?
I have voted in favour. It made no sense letting those funds sit idle while the STEP 2 framework already exists and has been approved, it would essentially forfeit thousands per month in yield, so it follows as a matter of both prudence and continuity to repurpose the funds into the STEP 2 structure, with no real shift in strategy.
It would however be useful to consider these scenarios in the future, perhaps enabling the committee to proceed while giving the DAO veto alternatives. Like Max suggested.
I have voted in favour. It made no sense letting those funds sit idle while the STEP 2 framework already exists and has been approved, it would essentially forfeit thousands per month in yield, so it follows as a matter of both prudence and continuity to repurpose the funds into the STEP 2 structure, with no real shift in strategy.
It would however be useful to consider these scenarios in the future, perhaps enabling the committee to proceed while giving the DAO veto alternatives. Like Max suggested.
Voted FOR
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR (Reallocate Redeemed funds to STEP 2 Budget) on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR (Reallocate Redeemed funds to STEP 2 Budget) on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
This is a no-brainer decision. Given that the DAO has already approved investments in these three RWA entities, we view this as an administrative matter rather than a new strategic direction. This is also one of the reasons we support the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts initiative. It aims to streamline processes like this, allowing similar decisions to follow OAT recommendations without needing a governance vote.
I voted FOR in this proposal. As the other TM initiatives are not in place yet, this is the best alternative to produce yield with an otherwise idle asset.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for. Below the rationale:
Voting FOR for the reasons mentioned here
Also agree with @Camelot here making this a precedent or even better an autonated decision. Then as it’s the dao treasury might still require an onchain vote.
Voting FOR for the reasons mentioned here
Also agree with @Camelot here making this a precedent or even better an autonated decision. Then as it’s the dao treasury might still require an onchain vote.
Which gets me thinking, cant proposals go onchain directly? Because maybe there is no need to put this through snapshot and can go directly to tally
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
This proposal is quite straightforward. WIth Mountain winding down and the USDM already converted, this is the most favorable next step and is an easy yes vote.
Voting "For"
I believe we should find a way to make this an administrative function rather than a DAO voting one. While the transparency is greatly appreciated, there really isn't a reason not to do this (since from the sounds of it, it is a winding down of a project out of our control). While not significant, the process of DAO voting does add unnecessary delay to all this resulting in lost interest.
voting For on the current offchain vote because in my opinion this vote needs to reach a 3% non-constitutional quorum to be a legitimate DAO decision, and it makes total sense to do it.
We agree with the allocation to WTGXX, USTBL and BENJI, switching our USDM position to these other assets.
We also agree with Camelot's suggestion that it is important to have a structure of pre-approved assets, to avoid everything going through votes at the DAO - optimizing the capital management process carried out by Entropy.
As per my previous note I have now voted "For".
I agree with the reasoning shared by others and will be voting FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
This is a sensible and logical proposal. Initially, these funds were allocated to STEP and deployed to earn a yield. They were only redeemed and converted to USDC because of Mountain Protocol winding down, not because of any internal decision to do so. Therefore, it makes sense to keep these funds allocated to STEP and redeploy them alongside the funds from STEP 2 to continue earning yield for the DAO.
I'm voting in favor as it seems the most rational choice: keeping these funds idle in USDC would mean missing out on potential yield and leaving treasury resources underutilized. No brainer, so I fully support it
Voting FOR This is an administrative task on something we already voted for.... feels like a waste of a vote. In general, we should use more optimistic governance, meaning if there's no opposition or concerns raised, we should just move forward rather than requiring active votes from everyone on these obvious votes. No need to waste energy of delegates and in this case, waste the money that could have been earned, delaying its execution just so everyone can vote yes.
I'm voting FOR - because the money from USDM is just sitting in USDC and not earning anything. Moving it to the STEP 2 budget lets it start earning yield again, which is better for the DAO.
How will the STEP Committee (a) track and surface legal / regulatory developments across all RWA sleeves, and (b) package quarterly performance reports so delegates can quickly see what’s working and what isn’t?
I have voted in favour. It made no sense letting those funds sit idle while the STEP 2 framework already exists and has been approved, it would essentially forfeit thousands per month in yield, so it follows as a matter of both prudence and continuity to repurpose the funds into the STEP 2 structure, with no real shift in strategy.
It would however be useful to consider these scenarios in the future, perhaps enabling the committee to proceed while giving the DAO veto alternatives. Like Max suggested.
I have voted in favour. It made no sense letting those funds sit idle while the STEP 2 framework already exists and has been approved, it would essentially forfeit thousands per month in yield, so it follows as a matter of both prudence and continuity to repurpose the funds into the STEP 2 structure, with no real shift in strategy.
It would however be useful to consider these scenarios in the future, perhaps enabling the committee to proceed while giving the DAO veto alternatives. Like Max suggested.
Voted FOR
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR (Reallocate Redeemed funds to STEP 2 Budget) on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR (Reallocate Redeemed funds to STEP 2 Budget) on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
This is a no-brainer decision. Given that the DAO has already approved investments in these three RWA entities, we view this as an administrative matter rather than a new strategic direction. This is also one of the reasons we support the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts initiative. It aims to streamline processes like this, allowing similar decisions to follow OAT recommendations without needing a governance vote.
I voted FOR in this proposal. As the other TM initiatives are not in place yet, this is the best alternative to produce yield with an otherwise idle asset.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for. Below the rationale:
Voting FOR for the reasons mentioned here
Also agree with @Camelot here making this a precedent or even better an autonated decision. Then as it’s the dao treasury might still require an onchain vote.
Voting FOR for the reasons mentioned here
Also agree with @Camelot here making this a precedent or even better an autonated decision. Then as it’s the dao treasury might still require an onchain vote.
Which gets me thinking, cant proposals go onchain directly? Because maybe there is no need to put this through snapshot and can go directly to tally
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
This proposal is quite straightforward. WIth Mountain winding down and the USDM already converted, this is the most favorable next step and is an easy yes vote.
Voting "For"
I believe we should find a way to make this an administrative function rather than a DAO voting one. While the transparency is greatly appreciated, there really isn't a reason not to do this (since from the sounds of it, it is a winding down of a project out of our control). While not significant, the process of DAO voting does add unnecessary delay to all this resulting in lost interest.
voting For on the current offchain vote because in my opinion this vote needs to reach a 3% non-constitutional quorum to be a legitimate DAO decision, and it makes total sense to do it.
We agree with the allocation to WTGXX, USTBL and BENJI, switching our USDM position to these other assets.
We also agree with Camelot's suggestion that it is important to have a structure of pre-approved assets, to avoid everything going through votes at the DAO - optimizing the capital management process carried out by Entropy.
As per my previous note I have now voted "For".
I agree with the reasoning shared by others and will be voting FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
This is a sensible and logical proposal. Initially, these funds were allocated to STEP and deployed to earn a yield. They were only redeemed and converted to USDC because of Mountain Protocol winding down, not because of any internal decision to do so. Therefore, it makes sense to keep these funds allocated to STEP and redeploy them alongside the funds from STEP 2 to continue earning yield for the DAO.
I'm voting in favor as it seems the most rational choice: keeping these funds idle in USDC would mean missing out on potential yield and leaving treasury resources underutilized. No brainer, so I fully support it
Voting FOR This is an administrative task on something we already voted for.... feels like a waste of a vote. In general, we should use more optimistic governance, meaning if there's no opposition or concerns raised, we should just move forward rather than requiring active votes from everyone on these obvious votes. No need to waste energy of delegates and in this case, waste the money that could have been earned, delaying its execution just so everyone can vote yes.
I'm voting FOR - because the money from USDM is just sitting in USDC and not earning anything. Moving it to the STEP 2 budget lets it start earning yield again, which is better for the DAO.
We support this proposal and echo @maxlomu’s suggestion; the Treasury Management Committee should have some flexibility to reallocate funds across pre-approved STEP baskets in response to changing conditions, as long as there’s a clear, opt-out mechanism for the DAO.
“Conditions change for one of the approved assets → Treasury Management Committee should be able to optimistically announce a reallocation into the rest of the basket.
The DAO would then have xx days to veto the move.” — @maxlomu
We support this proposal and echo @maxlomu’s suggestion; the Treasury Management Committee should have some flexibility to reallocate funds across pre-approved STEP baskets in response to changing conditions, as long as there’s a clear, opt-out mechanism for the DAO.
“Conditions change for one of the approved assets → Treasury Management Committee should be able to optimistically announce a reallocation into the rest of the basket.
The DAO would then have xx days to veto the move.” — @maxlomu
This kind of delegated autonomy, paired with DAO oversight through a timed veto window, strikes a healthy balance between operational efficiency and decentralized governance. It avoids unnecessary friction while still giving the DAO the final say.
We vote for this proposal because this is the most straightforward way to resume earnings without additional overhead / risk. Redirecting the idle $3.5M USDC into STEP 2’s yield strategy seamlessly restores the treasury’s income stream after Mountain Protocol’s shutdown. The move preserves the assets’ original yield-seeking mandate, adds no new counterparty or market risk after STEP 2 is already approved by the DAO.
I have voted FOR this proposal. The allocated funds, as determined by the DAO, are critical to preserve, especially with the wind-down of USDM. This vote aligns with my previous support for the STEP 2 Allocation.
As other delegates have noted, adopting an optimistic voting approach for these decisions could enhance the DAO's efficiency (I also mentionned this previously in this comment https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/59?u=0xalex )
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 FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
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 FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
As mentioned in our previous comment, we support reallocating the redeemed USDM funds into the approved STEP 2 basket. The reasoning is sound, and this action helps avoid unnecessary yield loss while staying aligned with the original intent of the STEP 2 program.
We will vote FOR this proposal. It’s quite straightforward, high-ROI treasury move: shifting the redeemed $3.5 million from idle USDC into the already-approved STEP 2 money-market sleeve instantly restores ~4-5 % annual yield and adds no new risk or operational complexity.
Voting YES, for the reallocation.
FranklinDAO supports this reallocation. Reallocating the USDC to the STEP 2 basket is a straightforward choice.
We echo what other delegates have said. Similar redeployments should be handled administratively with a veto window rather than a full governance cycle. When approved assets are redeemed due to external factors substituting into the same allocation shouldn't require another vote; this sets a good precedent for efficient treasury operations while still maintaining reasonable oversight.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
The auction will be made available and the instant buy price will be set at 0.1% of LobbyFi's VP market value in ETH terms (approx. 2.4 ETH)
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 support this proposal. It’s a low-risk, high-reward move to put idle funds back to work in already approved STEP 2 assets.
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 support this proposal. It’s a low-risk, high-reward move to put idle funds back to work in already approved STEP 2 assets.
We also agree with Camelot and Max in the future, the committee should handle similar cases without a full vote, but with a 7-day veto period for delegates to object if needed.
Let’s pass this proposal now and improve the process later.
Voting FOR. I wish we didn't have to vote on these kinds of things. These are very clear decisions that we should just move forward with.
This is basic treasury management, not something that needs DAO governance overhead.
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 support this reallocation, it's the right step given the USDM redemption and the fact that STEP 2 allocations have already been approved.
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 support this reallocation, it's the right step given the USDM redemption and the fact that STEP 2 allocations have already been approved.
That reasoning makes sense that the $3.5M in USDC is currently idle, and the DAO is missing out on yield while the rest of the budget is still awaiting ARB swaps. Given that context, prioritizing this reallocation makes sense. Going forward, it might be helpful to formalize this logic, when liquid funds are available and yield loss is significant, they should move first within an approved allocation.
We also agree with @Camelot & @maxlomu that if assets within an approved structure are redeemed due to external changes, reallocating them into the same basket shouldn’t require another full governance cycle. A defined process, optimistic execution with a DAO veto window, would make treasury operations more efficient while preserving accountability.
This seems like an entirely reasonable course of action.
I have to note that the disclaimer at the bottom of the post feels almost farcical. The entire OP should not be interpreted as an endorsement or advice to engage in any specific strategy. Okay then..
Disclaimer The information provided in this proposal is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or advice to engage in any specific transaction, strategy, or investment. The information is presented “as is” without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Delegates should consult with professional advisors for specific guidance before making any financial, legal, or tax-related decisions. Use of this committee recommendation is entirely at your own risk.
gm, in favor.
Going forward, I think the STEP process should be structured to avoid needing proposals like this.
Conditions change for one of the approved assets --> Treasury Management Committee should be able to optimistically announce a reallocation into the rest of the basket.
The DAO would then have xx days to veto the move.
Gauntlet approves this procedure.
The proposal itself is correct and timely (the closure of yield from USDM was announced only on May 12). Of course, all funds should remain within the STEP program.
However, I have a question: The closure of USDM is related to legal risks faced by the RWA in the United States. :speech_balloon: Are there any other similar assets within STEP that could be exposed to the same risks?
With USDM wound down after Anchorage Digital’s acquisition of Mountain Protocol, we support reallocating the $3.5M USDC to the STEP 2 basket exactly as approved (WTGXX 30 %, USTBL 35 %, BENJI 35 %). We also echo @Camelot, @maxlomu and @Euphoria that similar redeployments should be handled administratively—with only a delegate veto window—rather than a full governance cycle.
Straughtforward yes
Also agree with @Camelot here making this a precedent or even better an autonated decision. Then as it's the dao treasury might still require an onchain vote.
Which gets me thinking, cant proposals go onchain directly? Because maybe there is no need to put this through snapshot and can go directly to tally
Camelot supports this proposal as it represents the most logical step forward given the circumstances. The reallocation of redeemed USDM funds to the STEP 2 budget is, in our view, a straightforward administrative action. We obviously believe these funds should be allocated as soon as possible to avoid losing any interest on the principal.
More importantly, we think this precedent should set a standard for similar cases in which the DAO needs to recover stablecoins and wants to redeploy them quickly. For future instances where external factors force the redemption of approved treasury assets, we shouldn’t be required to go through a snapshot vote for redeployment into previously approved allocations. Such administrative decision should fall directly into the entities managing the treasury of the DAO.
We support this proposal and echo @maxlomu’s suggestion; the Treasury Management Committee should have some flexibility to reallocate funds across pre-approved STEP baskets in response to changing conditions, as long as there’s a clear, opt-out mechanism for the DAO.
“Conditions change for one of the approved assets → Treasury Management Committee should be able to optimistically announce a reallocation into the rest of the basket.
The DAO would then have xx days to veto the move.” — @maxlomu
We support this proposal and echo @maxlomu’s suggestion; the Treasury Management Committee should have some flexibility to reallocate funds across pre-approved STEP baskets in response to changing conditions, as long as there’s a clear, opt-out mechanism for the DAO.
“Conditions change for one of the approved assets → Treasury Management Committee should be able to optimistically announce a reallocation into the rest of the basket.
The DAO would then have xx days to veto the move.” — @maxlomu
This kind of delegated autonomy, paired with DAO oversight through a timed veto window, strikes a healthy balance between operational efficiency and decentralized governance. It avoids unnecessary friction while still giving the DAO the final say.
We vote for this proposal because this is the most straightforward way to resume earnings without additional overhead / risk. Redirecting the idle $3.5M USDC into STEP 2’s yield strategy seamlessly restores the treasury’s income stream after Mountain Protocol’s shutdown. The move preserves the assets’ original yield-seeking mandate, adds no new counterparty or market risk after STEP 2 is already approved by the DAO.
I have voted FOR this proposal. The allocated funds, as determined by the DAO, are critical to preserve, especially with the wind-down of USDM. This vote aligns with my previous support for the STEP 2 Allocation.
As other delegates have noted, adopting an optimistic voting approach for these decisions could enhance the DAO's efficiency (I also mentionned this previously in this comment https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/59?u=0xalex )
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 FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
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 FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
As mentioned in our previous comment, we support reallocating the redeemed USDM funds into the approved STEP 2 basket. The reasoning is sound, and this action helps avoid unnecessary yield loss while staying aligned with the original intent of the STEP 2 program.
We will vote FOR this proposal. It’s quite straightforward, high-ROI treasury move: shifting the redeemed $3.5 million from idle USDC into the already-approved STEP 2 money-market sleeve instantly restores ~4-5 % annual yield and adds no new risk or operational complexity.
Voting YES, for the reallocation.
FranklinDAO supports this reallocation. Reallocating the USDC to the STEP 2 basket is a straightforward choice.
We echo what other delegates have said. Similar redeployments should be handled administratively with a veto window rather than a full governance cycle. When approved assets are redeemed due to external factors substituting into the same allocation shouldn't require another vote; this sets a good precedent for efficient treasury operations while still maintaining reasonable oversight.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
The auction will be made available and the instant buy price will be set at 0.1% of LobbyFi's VP market value in ETH terms (approx. 2.4 ETH)
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 support this proposal. It’s a low-risk, high-reward move to put idle funds back to work in already approved STEP 2 assets.
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 support this proposal. It’s a low-risk, high-reward move to put idle funds back to work in already approved STEP 2 assets.
We also agree with Camelot and Max in the future, the committee should handle similar cases without a full vote, but with a 7-day veto period for delegates to object if needed.
Let’s pass this proposal now and improve the process later.
Voting FOR. I wish we didn't have to vote on these kinds of things. These are very clear decisions that we should just move forward with.
This is basic treasury management, not something that needs DAO governance overhead.
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 support this reallocation, it's the right step given the USDM redemption and the fact that STEP 2 allocations have already been approved.
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 support this reallocation, it's the right step given the USDM redemption and the fact that STEP 2 allocations have already been approved.
That reasoning makes sense that the $3.5M in USDC is currently idle, and the DAO is missing out on yield while the rest of the budget is still awaiting ARB swaps. Given that context, prioritizing this reallocation makes sense. Going forward, it might be helpful to formalize this logic, when liquid funds are available and yield loss is significant, they should move first within an approved allocation.
We also agree with @Camelot & @maxlomu that if assets within an approved structure are redeemed due to external changes, reallocating them into the same basket shouldn’t require another full governance cycle. A defined process, optimistic execution with a DAO veto window, would make treasury operations more efficient while preserving accountability.
This seems like an entirely reasonable course of action.
I have to note that the disclaimer at the bottom of the post feels almost farcical. The entire OP should not be interpreted as an endorsement or advice to engage in any specific strategy. Okay then..
Disclaimer The information provided in this proposal is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or advice to engage in any specific transaction, strategy, or investment. The information is presented “as is” without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Delegates should consult with professional advisors for specific guidance before making any financial, legal, or tax-related decisions. Use of this committee recommendation is entirely at your own risk.
gm, in favor.
Going forward, I think the STEP process should be structured to avoid needing proposals like this.
Conditions change for one of the approved assets --> Treasury Management Committee should be able to optimistically announce a reallocation into the rest of the basket.
The DAO would then have xx days to veto the move.
Gauntlet approves this procedure.
The proposal itself is correct and timely (the closure of yield from USDM was announced only on May 12). Of course, all funds should remain within the STEP program.
However, I have a question: The closure of USDM is related to legal risks faced by the RWA in the United States. :speech_balloon: Are there any other similar assets within STEP that could be exposed to the same risks?
With USDM wound down after Anchorage Digital’s acquisition of Mountain Protocol, we support reallocating the $3.5M USDC to the STEP 2 basket exactly as approved (WTGXX 30 %, USTBL 35 %, BENJI 35 %). We also echo @Camelot, @maxlomu and @Euphoria that similar redeployments should be handled administratively—with only a delegate veto window—rather than a full governance cycle.
Straughtforward yes
Also agree with @Camelot here making this a precedent or even better an autonated decision. Then as it's the dao treasury might still require an onchain vote.
Which gets me thinking, cant proposals go onchain directly? Because maybe there is no need to put this through snapshot and can go directly to tally
Camelot supports this proposal as it represents the most logical step forward given the circumstances. The reallocation of redeemed USDM funds to the STEP 2 budget is, in our view, a straightforward administrative action. We obviously believe these funds should be allocated as soon as possible to avoid losing any interest on the principal.
More importantly, we think this precedent should set a standard for similar cases in which the DAO needs to recover stablecoins and wants to redeploy them quickly. For future instances where external factors force the redemption of approved treasury assets, we shouldn’t be required to go through a snapshot vote for redeployment into previously approved allocations. Such administrative decision should fall directly into the entities managing the treasury of the DAO.
This seems like an entirely reasonable course of action.
I have to note that the disclaimer at the bottom of the post feels almost farcical. The entire OP should not be interpreted as an endorsement or advice to engage in any specific strategy. Okay then..
Disclaimer The information provided in this proposal is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or advice to engage in any specific transaction, strategy, or investment. The information is presented “as is” without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Delegates should consult with professional advisors for specific guidance before making any financial, legal, or tax-related decisions. Use of this committee recommendation is entirely at your own risk.
Disclaimer The information provided in this post is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this post should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation or intent of the poster to vote in any particular way. The information is presented “as is” without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Reader should consult with legal professionals before, during and after reading this post. Replies are posted entirely at your own risk.
This proposal, if passed via Snapshot with more votes For than Against
…and more than 3% quorum, right?
This seems like an entirely reasonable course of action.
I have to note that the disclaimer at the bottom of the post feels almost farcical. The entire OP should not be interpreted as an endorsement or advice to engage in any specific strategy. Okay then..
Disclaimer The information provided in this proposal is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this proposal should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation, or advice to engage in any specific transaction, strategy, or investment. The information is presented “as is” without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Delegates should consult with professional advisors for specific guidance before making any financial, legal, or tax-related decisions. Use of this committee recommendation is entirely at your own risk.
Disclaimer The information provided in this post is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Nothing in this post should be interpreted as an endorsement, recommendation or intent of the poster to vote in any particular way. The information is presented “as is” without any warranties of accuracy or completeness. Reader should consult with legal professionals before, during and after reading this post. Replies are posted entirely at your own risk.
This proposal, if passed via Snapshot with more votes For than Against
…and more than 3% quorum, right?