The 2025 Events Budget will no longer be dissolved, and instead funds will be moved to a yield bearing account managed by the Arbitrum Foundation/treasury managers. The Events Budget process will remain as currently structured until the end of 2025.
While Entropy believes events are a vertical that should for the most part fall under the Foundation’s scope and that smaller events should be funded by the D.A.O. grants program, the community has requested that this issue be taken up separately rather than being consolidated into a larger Snapshot vote. As such, we have modified this proposal to simply move the 2025 Events Budget into a yield bearing account with the ATMC to top up the stablecoin strategy allocation to treasury managers.
The Events Budget remains intact and will continue to follow the process outlined per the original proposal through 2025. Once 2025 comes to an end, the Stablecoins will remain allocated to the ATMC rather than being returned to the DAO treasury to ensure they continue to earn yield.
The ARDC v2 Extension proposal recently came to a close, which resulted in the collective NOT being extended. The instructions per the proposal were defined as “(The) AF returning all unused funds to the treasury”. However, now that the funds have already been converted from ARB into stablecoins, there is no sense in sending these funds back to the treasury to sit idle, and forcing another proposer to go through the entire onchain governance process to ensure they are earning yield for the DAO.
670,543.5 USDC was transferred from the MSS to an Arbitrum Foundation controlled address as a part of the MSS wind down. Entropy Advisors is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Arbitrum Foundation in regards to what portion of these funds have already been committed to service providers versus what is remaining/owed to the DAO. We propose sending any remaining ADPC Security Subsidy funds to the ATMC as well once the AF pays out any outstanding contractual obligations. We do not want this process to stall this proposal, as doing so would potentially result in the ARDC v2 funds being returned to the DAO treasury. Instead, we seek the DAO’s approval to reallocate these funds to the treasury managers deploying onchain stablecoin strategies once the situation has been sorted.
The 2025 Events Budget currently holds 1,044,095.59 USDC. If approved, the entirety of that balance will be moved to the Foundation controlled wallet that is designated for onchain stablecoin strategies managed by DAO approved treasury managers. The Events Budget process will remain unchanged for authors who wish to pull from this allocation of stablecoins to host an event.
The ARDC V2 currently holds 1,503,604.08 USDC and 112,245.95 ARB. The ARDC has finished and posted its final deliverable, the Arbitrum Ecosystem Mapping Report. Final invoices will now be obtained from the two research service providers, Castle Capital and DeFiLlama, and USDC payments initiated with the Arbitrum Foundation. Once these payments have been sent, the remaining USDC balance will be moved by the Foundation to the wallet designated for onchain stablecoin strategies. The remaining ARB will be returned to the DAO’s treasury.
As mentioned above, once the Arbitrum Foundation pays out any outstanding contractual obligations related to the ADPC Security Subsidies program, the remaining USDC will be sent to the ATMC. The ATMC will update the DAO once this has occurred on its dedicated forum thread.
The 15M ARB allocated to stablecoin strategies was recently converted into ~4.95M USDC, but this proposal would increase this allocation to ~7.5-8M USDC. These funds will either be split pro-rata amongst various treasury managers already approved by the DAO, or allocated according to the newly introduced ATMC procedures i.e., allocation recommendation from Entropy followed by OAT approval. These funds have been idle for several months, which could have otherwise been earning yield. This proposal is a part of a larger effort to strengthen the Arbitrum DAO’s financial position to enable long-term sustainable growth/increasing revenue.
July 14th: Forum post July 24th - July 31st : Snapshot vote By August 7th: If passed, funds will be transferred to the stablecoin strategy address within 7 days
The 2025 Events Budget will no longer be dissolved, and instead funds will be moved to a yield bearing account managed by the Arbitrum Foundation/treasury managers. The Events Budget process will remain as currently structured until the end of 2025.
While Entropy believes events are a vertical that should for the most part fall under the Foundation’s scope and that smaller events should be funded by the D.A.O. grants program, the community has requested that this issue be taken up separately rather than being consolidated into a larger Snapshot vote. As such, we have modified this proposal to simply move the 2025 Events Budget into a yield bearing account with the ATMC to top up the stablecoin strategy allocation to treasury managers.
The Events Budget remains intact and will continue to follow the process outlined per the original proposal through 2025. Once 2025 comes to an end, the Stablecoins will remain allocated to the ATMC rather than being returned to the DAO treasury to ensure they continue to earn yield.
The ARDC v2 Extension proposal recently came to a close, which resulted in the collective NOT being extended. The instructions per the proposal were defined as “(The) AF returning all unused funds to the treasury”. However, now that the funds have already been converted from ARB into stablecoins, there is no sense in sending these funds back to the treasury to sit idle, and forcing another proposer to go through the entire onchain governance process to ensure they are earning yield for the DAO.
670,543.5 USDC was transferred from the MSS to an Arbitrum Foundation controlled address as a part of the MSS wind down. Entropy Advisors is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Arbitrum Foundation in regards to what portion of these funds have already been committed to service providers versus what is remaining/owed to the DAO. We propose sending any remaining ADPC Security Subsidy funds to the ATMC as well once the AF pays out any outstanding contractual obligations. We do not want this process to stall this proposal, as doing so would potentially result in the ARDC v2 funds being returned to the DAO treasury. Instead, we seek the DAO’s approval to reallocate these funds to the treasury managers deploying onchain stablecoin strategies once the situation has been sorted.
The 2025 Events Budget currently holds 1,044,095.59 USDC. If approved, the entirety of that balance will be moved to the Foundation controlled wallet that is designated for onchain stablecoin strategies managed by DAO approved treasury managers. The Events Budget process will remain unchanged for authors who wish to pull from this allocation of stablecoins to host an event.
The ARDC V2 currently holds 1,503,604.08 USDC and 112,245.95 ARB. The ARDC has finished and posted its final deliverable, the Arbitrum Ecosystem Mapping Report. Final invoices will now be obtained from the two research service providers, Castle Capital and DeFiLlama, and USDC payments initiated with the Arbitrum Foundation. Once these payments have been sent, the remaining USDC balance will be moved by the Foundation to the wallet designated for onchain stablecoin strategies. The remaining ARB will be returned to the DAO’s treasury.
As mentioned above, once the Arbitrum Foundation pays out any outstanding contractual obligations related to the ADPC Security Subsidies program, the remaining USDC will be sent to the ATMC. The ATMC will update the DAO once this has occurred on its dedicated forum thread.
The 15M ARB allocated to stablecoin strategies was recently converted into ~4.95M USDC, but this proposal would increase this allocation to ~7.5-8M USDC. These funds will either be split pro-rata amongst various treasury managers already approved by the DAO, or allocated according to the newly introduced ATMC procedures i.e., allocation recommendation from Entropy followed by OAT approval. These funds have been idle for several months, which could have otherwise been earning yield. This proposal is a part of a larger effort to strengthen the Arbitrum DAO’s financial position to enable long-term sustainable growth/increasing revenue.
July 14th: Forum post July 24th - July 31st : Snapshot vote By August 7th: If passed, funds will be transferred to the stablecoin strategy address within 7 days
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/30?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/29
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/30?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/29
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/27
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-124): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-124
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-124): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-124
For. Consolidating idle USDC boosts financial efficiency, aligns with our values of optimizing resource use and empowering strategic vision.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/26?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/25?u=griff
it makes sense to put this money to use.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/23?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/21
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/20
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/19?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/17?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/27
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-124): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-124
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-124): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-124
For. Consolidating idle USDC boosts financial efficiency, aligns with our values of optimizing resource use and empowering strategic vision.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/26?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/25?u=griff
it makes sense to put this money to use.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/23?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/21
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/20
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/19?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/consolidate-idle-usdc-to-the-atmc-s-stablecoin-balance/29619/17?u=blockworksresearch
As per the Treasury Management V1.2 proposal, the Foundation controlled wallet that is designated for onchain stablecoin strategies managed by DAO approved treasury managers is 0xAc20CD734C65Baf48a1476447af7D3E3165DC739, rather than 0xd8e35e2450003cd8d50cc804aee4db0a8872b7a9. The latter address mentioned by Entropy above, was used to convert the TMC’s 15M ARB into stablecoins, which are now being returned to 0xAc20CD734C65Baf48a1476447af7D3E3165DC739.
Accordingly, the Arbitrum Foundation will be sending the remaining stablecoins from the 2025 Events Budget, ARDC V2, and ADPC Security Subsidies budgets to 0xAc20CD734C65Baf48a1476447af7D3E3165DC739. From here, they can be deployed and managed by approved treasury managers.
I believe there is no reason for these funds to just sit there doing nothing when they could be earning yield. The Events Budget still works exactly the same for the rest of 2025, the only change is we’re being smarter about where the money sits.
Same with the leftover ARDC and ADPC funds, it’s better to keep things moving instead of stalling or waiting on another full proposal just to put those funds to use.
I believe there is no reason for these funds to just sit there doing nothing when they could be earning yield. The Events Budget still works exactly the same for the rest of 2025, the only change is we’re being smarter about where the money sits.
Same with the leftover ARDC and ADPC funds, it’s better to keep things moving instead of stalling or waiting on another full proposal just to put those funds to use.
Feels like a solid, common-sense move to make the DAO’s treasury work harder for us.
As per the Treasury Management V1.2 proposal, the Foundation controlled wallet that is designated for onchain stablecoin strategies managed by DAO approved treasury managers is 0xAc20CD734C65Baf48a1476447af7D3E3165DC739, rather than 0xd8e35e2450003cd8d50cc804aee4db0a8872b7a9. The latter address mentioned by Entropy above, was used to convert the TMC’s 15M ARB into stablecoins, which are now being returned to 0xAc20CD734C65Baf48a1476447af7D3E3165DC739.
Accordingly, the Arbitrum Foundation will be sending the remaining stablecoins from the 2025 Events Budget, ARDC V2, and ADPC Security Subsidies budgets to 0xAc20CD734C65Baf48a1476447af7D3E3165DC739. From here, they can be deployed and managed by approved treasury managers.
I believe there is no reason for these funds to just sit there doing nothing when they could be earning yield. The Events Budget still works exactly the same for the rest of 2025, the only change is we’re being smarter about where the money sits.
Same with the leftover ARDC and ADPC funds, it’s better to keep things moving instead of stalling or waiting on another full proposal just to put those funds to use.
I believe there is no reason for these funds to just sit there doing nothing when they could be earning yield. The Events Budget still works exactly the same for the rest of 2025, the only change is we’re being smarter about where the money sits.
Same with the leftover ARDC and ADPC funds, it’s better to keep things moving instead of stalling or waiting on another full proposal just to put those funds to use.
Feels like a solid, common-sense move to make the DAO’s treasury work harder for us.
voted For on this past offchain vote because it makes sense to put this money to use.
Voting for.
Big proponent of effective treasury management and I this is good step towards achieving that. More assets put to work, meaning a win win situation. And I think consolidating funds makes the whole process operationally easier.
I have voted in favour. It made sense to consolidate funds from rejected proposals/remnants and continue optimizing with the treasury management.
I voted FOR on this proposal, as it was adjusted to keep the Events Budget available for the rest of the period.
I voted FOR on this proposal, as it was adjusted to keep the Events Budget available for the rest of the period.
Regarding this specific question, a good place to have it would be in an upcoming proposal regarding yearly budgeting. If this is too far away, and if it makes sense (e.g., if the funds available on season 2 are relevant), we could put it in the proposal for sending it to the TMC.
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’re 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’re voting FOR the proposal.
In our previous comment, we expressed our support for the consolidation of the USDC under ATMC, but we were sceptical of the dissolution of the DAO Events budget. With the proposal having been amended to remove the dissolution, we’re voting in favor.
Voting FOR. It’s a wise treasury management.
Voted FOR
It makes total sense to move all three buckets of idle funds into a place where they can earn yield. It’s a smart and responsible treasury management and I’m happy to support it.
As always thanks for the proposal!
1.This proposal allows the DAO to recover economic value from $1 million USDC that is currently inaccessible. Anything that brings funds back to the DAO aligns with my priorities.
As always thanks for the proposal!
1.This proposal allows the DAO to recover economic value from $1 million USDC that is currently inaccessible. Anything that brings funds back to the DAO aligns with my priorities.
Overall, I see this proposal as a technical solution that clearly improves the current state. For these reasons, I am voting FOR.
We’re voting for this proposal on Snapshot.
Consolidating idle stablecoins into the ATMC’s stablecoin balance is a logical and prudent step for improving capital efficiency and enabling more streamlined treasury management.
That said, we echo @Tane’s suggestion to explore DAO-wide operational guidelines for managing stablecoin-denominated budgets:
We’re voting for this proposal on Snapshot.
Consolidating idle stablecoins into the ATMC’s stablecoin balance is a logical and prudent step for improving capital efficiency and enabling more streamlined treasury management.
That said, we echo @Tane’s suggestion to explore DAO-wide operational guidelines for managing stablecoin-denominated budgets:
“We suggest exploring the creation of DAO-wide operational guidelines, whereby all DAO-approved, USD-denominated budgets would, by default, be allocated into specified, yield-bearing vaults at approval…”
Establishing this kind of framework could help standardize how approved budgets are handled across working groups, while also preserving capital and reducing idle funds. We believe this is worth further discussion in coordination with the ATMC and other stakeholders.
We’d also like to raise one forward-looking consideration:
Will there be a pathway for DAO programs to draw down stablecoins from the ATMC, rather than defaulting to ARB sales from the Treasury? Introducing this option with clear caps and oversight could give the DAO greater flexibility in financing operations while reducing unnecessary sell pressure on ARB.
Happy to support this proposal and look forward to continued coordination on treasury improvements.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We are in favor of consolidating idle USDC into the ATMC’s stablecoin balance, allowing the Treasury Council to manage these assets more efficiently. This move reduces fragmentation, streamlines reporting, and improves the DAO’s ability to execute treasury strategies without affecting ownership or oversight.
We are voting FOR this proposal, as it reflects a responsible approach to putting idle funds to work through yield-bearing strategies, in line with the DAO’s long-term goals.
That said, we suggest earmarking the Events Budget within the ATMC rather than dissolving it entirely. This preserves flexibility for supporting regionally relevant or DAO-native events that may not align with Foundation priorities or the Grants program, while still earning yield in the meantime.
We are voting FOR this proposal, as it reflects a responsible approach to putting idle funds to work through yield-bearing strategies, in line with the DAO’s long-term goals.
That said, we suggest earmarking the Events Budget within the ATMC rather than dissolving it entirely. This preserves flexibility for supporting regionally relevant or DAO-native events that may not align with Foundation priorities or the Grants program, while still earning yield in the meantime.
We also encourage greater transparency around how funds will be allocated within the ATMC. A simple investment framework and regular reporting would help improve oversight and confidence among delegates.
Finally, if any unused ADPC Security Subsidy funds remain, it may be worth coordinating with future security or audit efforts, where relevant.
Overall, we support the proposal and appreciate the thoughtful adjustments made so far. A few refinements could further strengthen its long-term value to the DAO.
We have voted in favor of this proposal.
Previously, we expressed ideas regarding certain aspects of Entropy’s initial proposal, specifically highlighting the need for a more structured framework to ensure that idle funds could generate yield without necessitating a reduction in available resources for ongoing activities. We are pleased to see that our feedback has been incorporated more directly and comprehensively than anticipated, by maintaining the Events Budget while optimizing its capital efficiency through yield-generating strategies. This proactive and thoughtful integration is highly appreciated. Overall, we fully support the refined proposal.
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 appreciate Entropy's proactive approach in putting idle funds to productive use. One key consideration is learning from past DAO experiences where event spending often failed to deliver expected results. Given that the DAO already operates grant programs focused on education and events, it would be more effective to engage specialized vendors/service providers to manage initiatives like hackathons. Seed Latam’s excellent work with DevConnect serves as a strong recent example. With ARDC currently inactive, redirecting capital toward revenue-generating initiatives for the DAO is prudent. We fully support Entropy's proposal.
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.
The updates in the proposal reflect a clear improvement. It balances capital efficiency with operational flexibility, something we specifically called out in our earlier comment. Keeping the Events Budget active while letting the funds earn yield is the right call.
The plan for reallocating ARDC V2 and ADPC funds makes sense, and the sequencing avoids unnecessary delay. We do think stronger transparency around treasury flows, especially from Foundation-controlled wallets, will be important as ATMC’s role continues to grow.
Voted in favor.
Knowing that funds send back to the treasury means having them idle in whatever assets they were sent in the first place, is quite easy to choose to instead put the capital at work, even more if this happens as form of growth of Arbitrum protocols and liquiidity.
Voted in favor.
Knowing that funds send back to the treasury means having them idle in whatever assets they were sent in the first place, is quite easy to choose to instead put the capital at work, even more if this happens as form of growth of Arbitrum protocols and liquiidity.
That said, as others mentioned, we do need rules to make this process straighforward. When a program ends and stable funds are left over, we have the following options:
In my opinion the management of these 3 choices should be straightforward and not require a vote. In the same fashion we just voted to update the Code of Conduct to manage a team member leaving/getting removed in case it was not specified by the initiative itself, we should also implement such measures for stable funds. Specifically:
The same framework should be utilized in case initiatives hold ETH, to be sent to the GMC initiative, albeit this seems a very hedge case.
I want to also stretch this forward and put up a practical example. Entropy asked me to gather info on remaining funds of Questbook Season 2. While I am not the program manager for that initiative, I did try to come up with the number of how much fund we can send back vs how much we should retain to finance on going initiatives (we are at the natural end of the program but a few milestones still need to be paid). With several members of the team being OOO, it was impossible to gather an answer in time to include also season 2 in this package, and we are now in the situation of either sending funds back to the treasury or put up a new vote.
All of this to say: we do need to have clear rules on
My question for @Entropy and for the whole dao is: a rule like the above, where should be put? The code of conduct seems like a stretch, but maybe is the only answer. Have thought about the question, but not the answer honestly.
It makes sense to consolidate the funds and begin a more coordinated effort to preserve DAO budget moving forward. Gaining some idle yield on stablecoin funds is perfectly reasonable and should have been mandated originally anyways.
Blockworks Advisory will support this proposal as it heads to Snapshot.
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.
While we’re supportive of consolidating idle USDC and utilizing it to generate yield, we do not think that the Events Budget should be dissolved. There have been numerous events since the DAO Events Budget was established, during which the DAO could have had a presence but didn’t. On the other hand, there were also numerous occasions where the DAO community took initiative and organized something, but without support from this event budget (examples: Arbitrum Day at ETHMilan, Arbitrum Run and Delegate Dinner at EthCC, upcoming ArbitrumDay at ETHLatam).
Hello Everyone,
Thank you to all of those who have provided feedback on this proposal.
Hello Everyone,
Thank you to all of those who have provided feedback on this proposal.
It appears to us that the only qualm with this proposal relates to the Event’s Budget wind-down, rather than the idle funds of expired programs (the ADPC Security Subsidies and the ARDC v2). As such, we will be modifying this proposal such that the Events Budget remains intact per the original proposal, but that the funds are transferred to a wallet that earns yield while the funds sit idle. Entropy does not believe that entities outside of the AF or OCL should host large scale events, and that smaller events are better suited for the D.A.O. Grants program, but we would like to prioritize ensuring the assets at hand are earning yield while sitting idle instead of increasing the complexity of this proposal by attempting to dissolve the 2025 DAO Events Budget in one vote.
The proposal has been modified to reflect the above, and will be sent to Snapshot for vote on Thursday, July 24th.
Lastly, Max brought up the idea of transferring the ADPC Security Subsidies budget to the new audit program:
:red_question_mark: ADPC Security Subsidies: shouldn’t this budget be allocated instead to the new audit-sponsored initiative by the @Arbitrum Foundation?
The Arbitrum Foundation was allocated 30m ARB (currently $13M) for this program, which we view as enough money to support this initiative. If the AF needs additional funds, we can allocate this capital to them in the future, but we might as well be earning yield on it in the interim.
On a side note: Any proposal authors seeking to utilize the 2025 DAO Events Budget moving forward will be held to an extremely high standard when it comes to winning Entropy’s vote, and we encourage other delegates to do the same.
Is this strictly a ministerial/custodial change? It does or does not revoke each budget?
We just want to be clear if the proposal is only moving funds, or if it is also formally reducing budgets, particularly the Events Budget.
If the latter, it would be great to get the movement of idle funds in one poll, and the budget change in a separate poll.
voted For on this past offchain vote because it makes sense to put this money to use.
Voting for.
Big proponent of effective treasury management and I this is good step towards achieving that. More assets put to work, meaning a win win situation. And I think consolidating funds makes the whole process operationally easier.
I have voted in favour. It made sense to consolidate funds from rejected proposals/remnants and continue optimizing with the treasury management.
I voted FOR on this proposal, as it was adjusted to keep the Events Budget available for the rest of the period.
I voted FOR on this proposal, as it was adjusted to keep the Events Budget available for the rest of the period.
Regarding this specific question, a good place to have it would be in an upcoming proposal regarding yearly budgeting. If this is too far away, and if it makes sense (e.g., if the funds available on season 2 are relevant), we could put it in the proposal for sending it to the TMC.
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’re 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’re voting FOR the proposal.
In our previous comment, we expressed our support for the consolidation of the USDC under ATMC, but we were sceptical of the dissolution of the DAO Events budget. With the proposal having been amended to remove the dissolution, we’re voting in favor.
Voting FOR. It’s a wise treasury management.
Voted FOR
It makes total sense to move all three buckets of idle funds into a place where they can earn yield. It’s a smart and responsible treasury management and I’m happy to support it.
As always thanks for the proposal!
1.This proposal allows the DAO to recover economic value from $1 million USDC that is currently inaccessible. Anything that brings funds back to the DAO aligns with my priorities.
As always thanks for the proposal!
1.This proposal allows the DAO to recover economic value from $1 million USDC that is currently inaccessible. Anything that brings funds back to the DAO aligns with my priorities.
Overall, I see this proposal as a technical solution that clearly improves the current state. For these reasons, I am voting FOR.
We’re voting for this proposal on Snapshot.
Consolidating idle stablecoins into the ATMC’s stablecoin balance is a logical and prudent step for improving capital efficiency and enabling more streamlined treasury management.
That said, we echo @Tane’s suggestion to explore DAO-wide operational guidelines for managing stablecoin-denominated budgets:
We’re voting for this proposal on Snapshot.
Consolidating idle stablecoins into the ATMC’s stablecoin balance is a logical and prudent step for improving capital efficiency and enabling more streamlined treasury management.
That said, we echo @Tane’s suggestion to explore DAO-wide operational guidelines for managing stablecoin-denominated budgets:
“We suggest exploring the creation of DAO-wide operational guidelines, whereby all DAO-approved, USD-denominated budgets would, by default, be allocated into specified, yield-bearing vaults at approval…”
Establishing this kind of framework could help standardize how approved budgets are handled across working groups, while also preserving capital and reducing idle funds. We believe this is worth further discussion in coordination with the ATMC and other stakeholders.
We’d also like to raise one forward-looking consideration:
Will there be a pathway for DAO programs to draw down stablecoins from the ATMC, rather than defaulting to ARB sales from the Treasury? Introducing this option with clear caps and oversight could give the DAO greater flexibility in financing operations while reducing unnecessary sell pressure on ARB.
Happy to support this proposal and look forward to continued coordination on treasury improvements.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We are in favor of consolidating idle USDC into the ATMC’s stablecoin balance, allowing the Treasury Council to manage these assets more efficiently. This move reduces fragmentation, streamlines reporting, and improves the DAO’s ability to execute treasury strategies without affecting ownership or oversight.
We are voting FOR this proposal, as it reflects a responsible approach to putting idle funds to work through yield-bearing strategies, in line with the DAO’s long-term goals.
That said, we suggest earmarking the Events Budget within the ATMC rather than dissolving it entirely. This preserves flexibility for supporting regionally relevant or DAO-native events that may not align with Foundation priorities or the Grants program, while still earning yield in the meantime.
We are voting FOR this proposal, as it reflects a responsible approach to putting idle funds to work through yield-bearing strategies, in line with the DAO’s long-term goals.
That said, we suggest earmarking the Events Budget within the ATMC rather than dissolving it entirely. This preserves flexibility for supporting regionally relevant or DAO-native events that may not align with Foundation priorities or the Grants program, while still earning yield in the meantime.
We also encourage greater transparency around how funds will be allocated within the ATMC. A simple investment framework and regular reporting would help improve oversight and confidence among delegates.
Finally, if any unused ADPC Security Subsidy funds remain, it may be worth coordinating with future security or audit efforts, where relevant.
Overall, we support the proposal and appreciate the thoughtful adjustments made so far. A few refinements could further strengthen its long-term value to the DAO.
We have voted in favor of this proposal.
Previously, we expressed ideas regarding certain aspects of Entropy’s initial proposal, specifically highlighting the need for a more structured framework to ensure that idle funds could generate yield without necessitating a reduction in available resources for ongoing activities. We are pleased to see that our feedback has been incorporated more directly and comprehensively than anticipated, by maintaining the Events Budget while optimizing its capital efficiency through yield-generating strategies. This proactive and thoughtful integration is highly appreciated. Overall, we fully support the refined proposal.
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 appreciate Entropy's proactive approach in putting idle funds to productive use. One key consideration is learning from past DAO experiences where event spending often failed to deliver expected results. Given that the DAO already operates grant programs focused on education and events, it would be more effective to engage specialized vendors/service providers to manage initiatives like hackathons. Seed Latam’s excellent work with DevConnect serves as a strong recent example. With ARDC currently inactive, redirecting capital toward revenue-generating initiatives for the DAO is prudent. We fully support Entropy's proposal.
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.
The updates in the proposal reflect a clear improvement. It balances capital efficiency with operational flexibility, something we specifically called out in our earlier comment. Keeping the Events Budget active while letting the funds earn yield is the right call.
The plan for reallocating ARDC V2 and ADPC funds makes sense, and the sequencing avoids unnecessary delay. We do think stronger transparency around treasury flows, especially from Foundation-controlled wallets, will be important as ATMC’s role continues to grow.
Voted in favor.
Knowing that funds send back to the treasury means having them idle in whatever assets they were sent in the first place, is quite easy to choose to instead put the capital at work, even more if this happens as form of growth of Arbitrum protocols and liquiidity.
Voted in favor.
Knowing that funds send back to the treasury means having them idle in whatever assets they were sent in the first place, is quite easy to choose to instead put the capital at work, even more if this happens as form of growth of Arbitrum protocols and liquiidity.
That said, as others mentioned, we do need rules to make this process straighforward. When a program ends and stable funds are left over, we have the following options:
In my opinion the management of these 3 choices should be straightforward and not require a vote. In the same fashion we just voted to update the Code of Conduct to manage a team member leaving/getting removed in case it was not specified by the initiative itself, we should also implement such measures for stable funds. Specifically:
The same framework should be utilized in case initiatives hold ETH, to be sent to the GMC initiative, albeit this seems a very hedge case.
I want to also stretch this forward and put up a practical example. Entropy asked me to gather info on remaining funds of Questbook Season 2. While I am not the program manager for that initiative, I did try to come up with the number of how much fund we can send back vs how much we should retain to finance on going initiatives (we are at the natural end of the program but a few milestones still need to be paid). With several members of the team being OOO, it was impossible to gather an answer in time to include also season 2 in this package, and we are now in the situation of either sending funds back to the treasury or put up a new vote.
All of this to say: we do need to have clear rules on
My question for @Entropy and for the whole dao is: a rule like the above, where should be put? The code of conduct seems like a stretch, but maybe is the only answer. Have thought about the question, but not the answer honestly.
It makes sense to consolidate the funds and begin a more coordinated effort to preserve DAO budget moving forward. Gaining some idle yield on stablecoin funds is perfectly reasonable and should have been mandated originally anyways.
Blockworks Advisory will support this proposal as it heads to Snapshot.
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.
While we’re supportive of consolidating idle USDC and utilizing it to generate yield, we do not think that the Events Budget should be dissolved. There have been numerous events since the DAO Events Budget was established, during which the DAO could have had a presence but didn’t. On the other hand, there were also numerous occasions where the DAO community took initiative and organized something, but without support from this event budget (examples: Arbitrum Day at ETHMilan, Arbitrum Run and Delegate Dinner at EthCC, upcoming ArbitrumDay at ETHLatam).
Hello Everyone,
Thank you to all of those who have provided feedback on this proposal.
Hello Everyone,
Thank you to all of those who have provided feedback on this proposal.
It appears to us that the only qualm with this proposal relates to the Event’s Budget wind-down, rather than the idle funds of expired programs (the ADPC Security Subsidies and the ARDC v2). As such, we will be modifying this proposal such that the Events Budget remains intact per the original proposal, but that the funds are transferred to a wallet that earns yield while the funds sit idle. Entropy does not believe that entities outside of the AF or OCL should host large scale events, and that smaller events are better suited for the D.A.O. Grants program, but we would like to prioritize ensuring the assets at hand are earning yield while sitting idle instead of increasing the complexity of this proposal by attempting to dissolve the 2025 DAO Events Budget in one vote.
The proposal has been modified to reflect the above, and will be sent to Snapshot for vote on Thursday, July 24th.
Lastly, Max brought up the idea of transferring the ADPC Security Subsidies budget to the new audit program:
:red_question_mark: ADPC Security Subsidies: shouldn’t this budget be allocated instead to the new audit-sponsored initiative by the @Arbitrum Foundation?
The Arbitrum Foundation was allocated 30m ARB (currently $13M) for this program, which we view as enough money to support this initiative. If the AF needs additional funds, we can allocate this capital to them in the future, but we might as well be earning yield on it in the interim.
On a side note: Any proposal authors seeking to utilize the 2025 DAO Events Budget moving forward will be held to an extremely high standard when it comes to winning Entropy’s vote, and we encourage other delegates to do the same.
Is this strictly a ministerial/custodial change? It does or does not revoke each budget?
We just want to be clear if the proposal is only moving funds, or if it is also formally reducing budgets, particularly the Events Budget.
If the latter, it would be great to get the movement of idle funds in one poll, and the budget change in a separate poll.
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 appreciate Entropy's proactive approach in putting idle funds to productive use. One key consideration is learning from past DAO experiences where event spending often failed to deliver expected results. Given that the DAO already operates grant programs focused on education and events, it would be more effective to engage specialized vendors/service providers to manage initiatives like hackathons. Seed Latam’s excellent work with DevConnect serves as a strong recent example. With ARDC currently inactive, redirecting capital toward revenue-generating initiatives for the DAO is prudent. We fully support Entropy's proposal.
We will be voting in favour of 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.
While we’re supportive of consolidating idle USDC and utilizing it to generate yield, we do not think that the Events Budget should be dissolved. There have been numerous events since the DAO Events Budget was established, during which the DAO could have had a presence but didn’t. On the other hand, there were also numerous occasions where the DAO community took initiative and organized something, but without support from this event budget (examples: Arbitrum Day at ETHMilan, Arbitrum Run and Delegate Dinner at EthCC, upcoming ArbitrumDay at ETHLatam).
If anything, we think this is a hint that the problem isn’t the need for such a budget, but rather its administration. Its entire structure, as also confirmed in this proposal, was based on requests, rather than proactively seeking to craft an events strategy and pursue Arbitrum's presence in various events.
Perhaps it's more prudent to move the funds’ administration from Entropy to a different party. In the meantime, the USDC could be utilised for yield, but without scrapping the idea of the Events Budget altogether.
We support this proposal because the Arbitrum Foundation has the right staff and experience to run large events, and letting stablecoins sit idle is wasteful. The plan moves about 1.04 million USDC left in the 2025 Events Budget, roughly 1.5 million USDC being returned from the ARDC v2 program, and any extra from the ADPC security fund into the ATMC stablecoin balance so the treasury can earn yield. This would raise the ATMC pool to more than seven million USDC and start earning interest right away. Therefore, we support this proposal.
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 appreciate the initiative to consolidate idle USDC into yield-generating strategies and commends Entropy for the careful analysis of past event funding challenges.
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 appreciate the initiative to consolidate idle USDC into yield-generating strategies and commends Entropy for the careful analysis of past event funding challenges.
We support the underlying motivation like consolidating idle stablecoin balances into the ATMC’s onchain strategies is a good step toward maximizing the DAO’s capital efficiency. The DAO’s financial sustainability depends on productive asset management, and we recognize the ATMC’s mandate.
Both @jameskbh and @Curia made great points about not throwing away all optionality for DAO-native events. It makes sense to earmark some of these funds within the ATMC, let the capital generate yield, yes, but keep the window open for special initiatives that fall outside the Foundation’s core plans. Otherwise, we risk shutting the door on creative or regional experiments, which have driven growth in other DAOs.
As the ATMC’s remit expands and the managed capital increases, we encourage Entropy and the ATMC to publish a lightweight investment framework, describing protocol selection criteria, yield benchmarks, and risk management standards. Additionally, we ask that all fund movements, including any future redeployment for event support or security initiatives, be fully disclosed within ATMC’s reporting.
Lastly, we echo @maxlomu and @Curia’s calls for a published breakdown or visual map of operational roles and touchpoints between the Foundation, ATMC, AAEs, and (future) OpCo. This would help community members and proposers navigate where to direct proposals and inquiries, given the evolving flow of programmatic and treasury responsibilities.
Overall, we are in support of the idea of the proposal. Moving idle funds is the right play, but let’s do it in a way that doesn’t shut down the flexibility and transparency that have made the DAO what it is.
Thank you to Entropy for putting forward a thoughtful and well-structured proposal. We support the overall intent to consolidate idle funds into yield-generating strategies managed under the ATMC, which is aligned with the DAO’s long-term goals of capital efficiency and sustainability as outlined in the MVP and Strategic Objectives initiatives. That said, we would like to suggest a few refinements and explore certain areas where clarity or adjustments could further strengthen the proposal’s alignment with broader community needs and operational flexibility.
First, we echo the suggestions from @cp0x and @jameskbh regarding the Events Budget. While we understand the challenges with its current structure, we suggest earmarking these funds within the ATMC rather than fully dissolving them. This approach would allow the funds to remain productive while preserving the DAO’s ability to support future DAO-native or regionally relevant event opportunities that may not align with the Foundation’s roadmap or qualify under the D.A.O. Grants Program. We also encourage the team to explore how liquidity can be maintained to ensure that these earmarked funds are accessible for time-sensitive opportunities, should they arise.
Thank you to Entropy for putting forward a thoughtful and well-structured proposal. We support the overall intent to consolidate idle funds into yield-generating strategies managed under the ATMC, which is aligned with the DAO’s long-term goals of capital efficiency and sustainability as outlined in the MVP and Strategic Objectives initiatives. That said, we would like to suggest a few refinements and explore certain areas where clarity or adjustments could further strengthen the proposal’s alignment with broader community needs and operational flexibility.
First, we echo the suggestions from @cp0x and @jameskbh regarding the Events Budget. While we understand the challenges with its current structure, we suggest earmarking these funds within the ATMC rather than fully dissolving them. This approach would allow the funds to remain productive while preserving the DAO’s ability to support future DAO-native or regionally relevant event opportunities that may not align with the Foundation’s roadmap or qualify under the D.A.O. Grants Program. We also encourage the team to explore how liquidity can be maintained to ensure that these earmarked funds are accessible for time-sensitive opportunities, should they arise.
Second, as more capital is entrusted to the ATMC, we suggest increased transparency around how these funds will be allocated. While the proposal outlines the general stablecoin strategy, it would be beneficial to explore publishing a lightweight investment framework that includes expected yield ranges, preferred protocol characteristics, and risk parameters. This would help delegates better understand the trade-offs involved and improve overall oversight.
Third, while we recognize that the OAT plays a key role in oversight, we recommend clarifying how governance and reporting processes will apply to the newly allocated funds. This includes confirming that all fund deployments will be publicly disclosed in the ATMC’s forum thread and that quarterly reporting will be provided with performance data and strategy updates. These practices would support the DAO’s broader push for transparency and operational accountability.
Regarding the unused ADPC Security Subsidies, we suggest exploring whether any unallocated funds could be coordinated with the Arbitrum Foundation’s upcoming security or audit initiatives. If these initiatives are well-defined and mission-aligned, they may represent a more targeted use of capital than passive yield alone.
Finally, we support the point raised by @maxlomu regarding the need for a clearer breakdown of responsibilities between the ATMC, AAEs, and the Foundation. As operational roles expand, publishing a simple responsibility map would help DAO contributors and proposers understand where to engage and who to coordinate with across different verticals.
In summary, we support the spirit and intent of this proposal and appreciate the work done by Entropy and the ATMC. By incorporating the above suggestions and exploring these improvements, we believe the proposal can deliver even greater value to the DAO while upholding the principles of transparency, flexibility, and community alignment. We welcome any clarification or iteration from the proposers and would be happy to support further discussion to refine these ideas.
We appreciate Entropy's thoughtful proposal and the clear rationale provided for consolidating idle USDC balances under ATMC management. Given that the DAO has already approved the existence and operational mandate of the ATMC, we agree it is logical to consolidate idle or unused funds into its custody for yield generation.
Specifically regarding the Events Budget, we agree that continuing to maintain idle funds generates an unnecessary opportunity cost. At the same time, shifting this budget to yield-generating strategies under ATMC does not inherently preclude community-driven events, as smaller-scale or grassroots initiatives can still leverage existing DAO structures, such as the D.A.O. program or targeted collaboration with the Foundation. Regarding the ARDC v2 budget and ADPC Security Subsidies, we similarly support consolidating these balances for more effective management and yield optimization, particularly given the flexibility to redeploy funds back to related activities if needed.
We appreciate Entropy's thoughtful proposal and the clear rationale provided for consolidating idle USDC balances under ATMC management. Given that the DAO has already approved the existence and operational mandate of the ATMC, we agree it is logical to consolidate idle or unused funds into its custody for yield generation.
Specifically regarding the Events Budget, we agree that continuing to maintain idle funds generates an unnecessary opportunity cost. At the same time, shifting this budget to yield-generating strategies under ATMC does not inherently preclude community-driven events, as smaller-scale or grassroots initiatives can still leverage existing DAO structures, such as the D.A.O. program or targeted collaboration with the Foundation. Regarding the ARDC v2 budget and ADPC Security Subsidies, we similarly support consolidating these balances for more effective management and yield optimization, particularly given the flexibility to redeploy funds back to related activities if needed.
That said, we suggest exploring the creation of DAO-wide operational guidelines, whereby all DAO-approved, USD-denominated budgets would, by default, be allocated into specified, yield-bearing vaults at approval. Under these guidelines, budgeted funds would be earning yield with distinct wallets before being withdrawn strictly at the point of actual payment obligations. Non-budgeted, general treasury assets would then remain under the strategic management of the ATMC, enabling balanced risk-adjusted allocation across the entire Arbitrum treasury portfolio. Rather than simply withdrawing idle funds as outlined in this proposal, we believe it would be possible to address these cases by introducing the above guidelines. We encourage Entropy and the ATMC to explore formalizing such guidelines, as this could enhance the efficiency and sustainability of DAO treasury operations, while reducing operational friction and easing the burden associated with repeated governance proposals and approvals.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I fully support transferring stablecoins to ATMC, as this provides direct yield.
On the other hand, there are a few concerns that I believe are worth highlighting:
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I fully support transferring stablecoins to ATMC, as this provides direct yield.
On the other hand, there are a few concerns that I believe are worth highlighting:
Thank you for putting this together—overall, I support the goal of utilising idle assets, especially now that the DAO has established mechanisms to manage treasury yield generation.
That said, I’d like to propose a middle-ground approach specifically for the Events Budget:
Thank you for putting this together—overall, I support the goal of utilising idle assets, especially now that the DAO has established mechanisms to manage treasury yield generation.
That said, I’d like to propose a middle-ground approach specifically for the Events Budget:
Instead of dissolving it, I suggest moving the funds under the ATMC balance to generate yield, while earmarking it for future event opportunities.
I agree with many of the points raised. However, I believe it’s valuable for the DAO to retain the option to directly support smaller, DAO-native initiatives that might not fall within the Foundation’s roadmap or the D.A.O. Grants threshold. Removing this budget entirely would eliminate a flexible tool that could be useful for unique opportunities, especially in H2.
By integrating the Events Budget into ATMC-managed strategies, we avoid leaving funds idle while preserving optionality. This approach ensures that if compelling event proposals emerge, they can be supported without requiring new budget allocations or delaying governance cycles.
In short: let’s keep the Events Budget productive, not dissolved.
Supportive.
We should think about something for the events issue (post OpCo setup) but agree that the way the events budget was structured didn't work out. So this makes sense
Hi this is Brook from TiD Research. I share the concern raised by others regarding clawing back the Events Budget without preserving any room for DAO-driven or community-initiated participation. While the Arbitrum Foundation has consistently demonstrated strong execution on marquee events, I believe there's a risk in leaving the decision-making entirely in the hands of the Foundation—especially in a fast-evolving environment like right now.
At the moment there are multiple narratives and emerging verticals in the market where delegates and community members often might have better visibility than the Foundation. These opportunities can include regionally relevant events, ecosystem-specific meetups, or narrative-aligned activations that may not be on the Foundation’s radar. If the DAO loses the ability to flag and support such events, we risk missing out on high-value opportunities that could meaningfully advance Arbitrum’s presence.
Hi this is Brook from TiD Research. I share the concern raised by others regarding clawing back the Events Budget without preserving any room for DAO-driven or community-initiated participation. While the Arbitrum Foundation has consistently demonstrated strong execution on marquee events, I believe there's a risk in leaving the decision-making entirely in the hands of the Foundation—especially in a fast-evolving environment like right now.
At the moment there are multiple narratives and emerging verticals in the market where delegates and community members often might have better visibility than the Foundation. These opportunities can include regionally relevant events, ecosystem-specific meetups, or narrative-aligned activations that may not be on the Foundation’s radar. If the DAO loses the ability to flag and support such events, we risk missing out on high-value opportunities that could meaningfully advance Arbitrum’s presence.
At the same time, I do believe that the Foundation is usually better positioned than most of us to handle the operational aspects of event planning and execution. With that in mind, perhaps a more balanced structure could be considered—one where the DAO retains a channel to propose or prioritize events, and the Foundation takes on execution.
This kind of setup would give the DAO a voice in shaping where Arbitrum shows up, without slowing things down or overcomplicating execution. Curious to hear what others think—or if anyone’s seen similar setups work well in other ecosystems.
Thanks for putting this forward — we’re strongly aligned with the spirit and direction of this proposal.
Thanks for putting this forward — we’re strongly aligned with the spirit and direction of this proposal.
After observing the first few attempts to pull funds from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget, Entropy has concluded that it is in the DAO’s best interest to relinquish large events and major sponsorships decisions to the Foundation
We fully agree with this assessment. Earlier in the year, we supported a more structured, DAO-led process for events, but it's become clear that the Arbitrum Foundation is in a better position to lead on this front. They have the resources, network, and strategic alignment to convert events into meaningful ecosystem growth — something the DAO, at least in its current form, isn’t optimised for.
This was a worthwhile experiment, and we appreciate its intent. That said, we’re now in favour of cutting our losses and recovering whatever funds are left.
However, now that the funds have already been converted from ARB into stablecoins, there is no sense in sending these funds back to the treasury to sit idle
Again, this makes sense to us. Since the funds are already in stablecoins and the ARDC is no longer active, folding these into the ATMC’s treasury management efforts is a logical next step.
We also support redirecting unused ADPC Security Subsidy funds to the ATMC once outstanding commitments are fulfilled. These funds were initially earmarked for valuable initiatives, but have since sat idle — putting them to work is the pragmatic move.
While the amounts may be relatively small and not significantly contribute to the runway, it's about building better habits around fund stewardship and signalling a commitment to the DAO's long-term sustainability. This is a step in the right direction: improving capital efficiency, optimising costs, and taking a more proactive approach to treasury management.
Thank you for this proposal, Entropy — it's a pragmatic step toward optimizing the DAO's idle assets and ensuring they're put to productive use through the ATMC's stablecoin strategies. As a delegate, I support the underlying goal of consolidating these funds to generate yield and bolster Arbitrum's financial sustainability, especially given the rationale around events execution and the inefficiencies observed so far.
That said, while the ideas here align well overall, I believe the proposal would benefit from being split into separate votes for each component: one for the Events Budget dissolution, another for the ARDC v2 funds, and a third for the ADPC Security Subsidies remainder. This modular approach would allow delegates to evaluate and approve each on its merits, avoiding the risk of bundling strong elements with potentially contentious ones and ensuring more targeted governance.
Appreciate Entropy’s proactive effort in addressing the fragmentation of unused USDC across expired or inactive initiatives.
This proposal will help improve capital efficiency in Arbitrum’s treasury while keeping things safe and under proper governance.
Appreciate Entropy’s proactive effort in addressing the fragmentation of unused USDC across expired or inactive initiatives.
This proposal will help improve capital efficiency in Arbitrum’s treasury while keeping things safe and under proper governance.
Instead of letting funds sit around in separate, underused budgets, consolidating them into a single strategic wallet makes it easier to track performance and manage them effectively.
Also, DAO is shifting from a grant-heavy toward a more sustainable finance model using existing assets to generate long term yield. This will reduce the need to sell ARB and helps strengthen the DAO’s yield layer.
Just small concern, about the events part, I agree that scattered and uncoordinated efforts without a clear strategy can be confusing and ineffective. But since there’s still a large portion of the budget left, I’m curious if are there any events already being planned that haven’t launched yet? If we suddenly pull funding, it might disrupt ongoing work.
Just want to make sure Entropy has coordinated with the involved parties before we vote.
gm, overall in support of the initiative.
A couple of notes:
:white_check_mark: Dissolve DAO’s 2025 Events Budget: I also think the Foundation is better suited to manage larger events (the Arbiverse editions I’ve attended were impressive for example).
gm, overall in support of the initiative.
A couple of notes:
:white_check_mark: Dissolve DAO’s 2025 Events Budget: I also think the Foundation is better suited to manage larger events (the Arbiverse editions I’ve attended were impressive for example).
Given that tasks and accountability are being shuffled, I believe we need a clear overview of which AAE handles what, with defined responsibilities and contact points.
:white_check_mark: ARDC Budget: In favor of allocating it to yield generating opportunities, or better to help new protocols bootstrap their initial liquidity.
:red_question_mark: ADPC Security Subsidies: shouldn’t this budget be allocated instead to the new audit-sponsored initiative by the @Arbitrum Foundation?
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 appreciate Entropy's proactive approach in putting idle funds to productive use. One key consideration is learning from past DAO experiences where event spending often failed to deliver expected results. Given that the DAO already operates grant programs focused on education and events, it would be more effective to engage specialized vendors/service providers to manage initiatives like hackathons. Seed Latam’s excellent work with DevConnect serves as a strong recent example. With ARDC currently inactive, redirecting capital toward revenue-generating initiatives for the DAO is prudent. We fully support Entropy's proposal.
We will be voting in favour of 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.
While we’re supportive of consolidating idle USDC and utilizing it to generate yield, we do not think that the Events Budget should be dissolved. There have been numerous events since the DAO Events Budget was established, during which the DAO could have had a presence but didn’t. On the other hand, there were also numerous occasions where the DAO community took initiative and organized something, but without support from this event budget (examples: Arbitrum Day at ETHMilan, Arbitrum Run and Delegate Dinner at EthCC, upcoming ArbitrumDay at ETHLatam).
If anything, we think this is a hint that the problem isn’t the need for such a budget, but rather its administration. Its entire structure, as also confirmed in this proposal, was based on requests, rather than proactively seeking to craft an events strategy and pursue Arbitrum's presence in various events.
Perhaps it's more prudent to move the funds’ administration from Entropy to a different party. In the meantime, the USDC could be utilised for yield, but without scrapping the idea of the Events Budget altogether.
We support this proposal because the Arbitrum Foundation has the right staff and experience to run large events, and letting stablecoins sit idle is wasteful. The plan moves about 1.04 million USDC left in the 2025 Events Budget, roughly 1.5 million USDC being returned from the ARDC v2 program, and any extra from the ADPC security fund into the ATMC stablecoin balance so the treasury can earn yield. This would raise the ATMC pool to more than seven million USDC and start earning interest right away. Therefore, we support this proposal.
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 appreciate the initiative to consolidate idle USDC into yield-generating strategies and commends Entropy for the careful analysis of past event funding challenges.
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 appreciate the initiative to consolidate idle USDC into yield-generating strategies and commends Entropy for the careful analysis of past event funding challenges.
We support the underlying motivation like consolidating idle stablecoin balances into the ATMC’s onchain strategies is a good step toward maximizing the DAO’s capital efficiency. The DAO’s financial sustainability depends on productive asset management, and we recognize the ATMC’s mandate.
Both @jameskbh and @Curia made great points about not throwing away all optionality for DAO-native events. It makes sense to earmark some of these funds within the ATMC, let the capital generate yield, yes, but keep the window open for special initiatives that fall outside the Foundation’s core plans. Otherwise, we risk shutting the door on creative or regional experiments, which have driven growth in other DAOs.
As the ATMC’s remit expands and the managed capital increases, we encourage Entropy and the ATMC to publish a lightweight investment framework, describing protocol selection criteria, yield benchmarks, and risk management standards. Additionally, we ask that all fund movements, including any future redeployment for event support or security initiatives, be fully disclosed within ATMC’s reporting.
Lastly, we echo @maxlomu and @Curia’s calls for a published breakdown or visual map of operational roles and touchpoints between the Foundation, ATMC, AAEs, and (future) OpCo. This would help community members and proposers navigate where to direct proposals and inquiries, given the evolving flow of programmatic and treasury responsibilities.
Overall, we are in support of the idea of the proposal. Moving idle funds is the right play, but let’s do it in a way that doesn’t shut down the flexibility and transparency that have made the DAO what it is.
Thank you to Entropy for putting forward a thoughtful and well-structured proposal. We support the overall intent to consolidate idle funds into yield-generating strategies managed under the ATMC, which is aligned with the DAO’s long-term goals of capital efficiency and sustainability as outlined in the MVP and Strategic Objectives initiatives. That said, we would like to suggest a few refinements and explore certain areas where clarity or adjustments could further strengthen the proposal’s alignment with broader community needs and operational flexibility.
First, we echo the suggestions from @cp0x and @jameskbh regarding the Events Budget. While we understand the challenges with its current structure, we suggest earmarking these funds within the ATMC rather than fully dissolving them. This approach would allow the funds to remain productive while preserving the DAO’s ability to support future DAO-native or regionally relevant event opportunities that may not align with the Foundation’s roadmap or qualify under the D.A.O. Grants Program. We also encourage the team to explore how liquidity can be maintained to ensure that these earmarked funds are accessible for time-sensitive opportunities, should they arise.
Thank you to Entropy for putting forward a thoughtful and well-structured proposal. We support the overall intent to consolidate idle funds into yield-generating strategies managed under the ATMC, which is aligned with the DAO’s long-term goals of capital efficiency and sustainability as outlined in the MVP and Strategic Objectives initiatives. That said, we would like to suggest a few refinements and explore certain areas where clarity or adjustments could further strengthen the proposal’s alignment with broader community needs and operational flexibility.
First, we echo the suggestions from @cp0x and @jameskbh regarding the Events Budget. While we understand the challenges with its current structure, we suggest earmarking these funds within the ATMC rather than fully dissolving them. This approach would allow the funds to remain productive while preserving the DAO’s ability to support future DAO-native or regionally relevant event opportunities that may not align with the Foundation’s roadmap or qualify under the D.A.O. Grants Program. We also encourage the team to explore how liquidity can be maintained to ensure that these earmarked funds are accessible for time-sensitive opportunities, should they arise.
Second, as more capital is entrusted to the ATMC, we suggest increased transparency around how these funds will be allocated. While the proposal outlines the general stablecoin strategy, it would be beneficial to explore publishing a lightweight investment framework that includes expected yield ranges, preferred protocol characteristics, and risk parameters. This would help delegates better understand the trade-offs involved and improve overall oversight.
Third, while we recognize that the OAT plays a key role in oversight, we recommend clarifying how governance and reporting processes will apply to the newly allocated funds. This includes confirming that all fund deployments will be publicly disclosed in the ATMC’s forum thread and that quarterly reporting will be provided with performance data and strategy updates. These practices would support the DAO’s broader push for transparency and operational accountability.
Regarding the unused ADPC Security Subsidies, we suggest exploring whether any unallocated funds could be coordinated with the Arbitrum Foundation’s upcoming security or audit initiatives. If these initiatives are well-defined and mission-aligned, they may represent a more targeted use of capital than passive yield alone.
Finally, we support the point raised by @maxlomu regarding the need for a clearer breakdown of responsibilities between the ATMC, AAEs, and the Foundation. As operational roles expand, publishing a simple responsibility map would help DAO contributors and proposers understand where to engage and who to coordinate with across different verticals.
In summary, we support the spirit and intent of this proposal and appreciate the work done by Entropy and the ATMC. By incorporating the above suggestions and exploring these improvements, we believe the proposal can deliver even greater value to the DAO while upholding the principles of transparency, flexibility, and community alignment. We welcome any clarification or iteration from the proposers and would be happy to support further discussion to refine these ideas.
We appreciate Entropy's thoughtful proposal and the clear rationale provided for consolidating idle USDC balances under ATMC management. Given that the DAO has already approved the existence and operational mandate of the ATMC, we agree it is logical to consolidate idle or unused funds into its custody for yield generation.
Specifically regarding the Events Budget, we agree that continuing to maintain idle funds generates an unnecessary opportunity cost. At the same time, shifting this budget to yield-generating strategies under ATMC does not inherently preclude community-driven events, as smaller-scale or grassroots initiatives can still leverage existing DAO structures, such as the D.A.O. program or targeted collaboration with the Foundation. Regarding the ARDC v2 budget and ADPC Security Subsidies, we similarly support consolidating these balances for more effective management and yield optimization, particularly given the flexibility to redeploy funds back to related activities if needed.
We appreciate Entropy's thoughtful proposal and the clear rationale provided for consolidating idle USDC balances under ATMC management. Given that the DAO has already approved the existence and operational mandate of the ATMC, we agree it is logical to consolidate idle or unused funds into its custody for yield generation.
Specifically regarding the Events Budget, we agree that continuing to maintain idle funds generates an unnecessary opportunity cost. At the same time, shifting this budget to yield-generating strategies under ATMC does not inherently preclude community-driven events, as smaller-scale or grassroots initiatives can still leverage existing DAO structures, such as the D.A.O. program or targeted collaboration with the Foundation. Regarding the ARDC v2 budget and ADPC Security Subsidies, we similarly support consolidating these balances for more effective management and yield optimization, particularly given the flexibility to redeploy funds back to related activities if needed.
That said, we suggest exploring the creation of DAO-wide operational guidelines, whereby all DAO-approved, USD-denominated budgets would, by default, be allocated into specified, yield-bearing vaults at approval. Under these guidelines, budgeted funds would be earning yield with distinct wallets before being withdrawn strictly at the point of actual payment obligations. Non-budgeted, general treasury assets would then remain under the strategic management of the ATMC, enabling balanced risk-adjusted allocation across the entire Arbitrum treasury portfolio. Rather than simply withdrawing idle funds as outlined in this proposal, we believe it would be possible to address these cases by introducing the above guidelines. We encourage Entropy and the ATMC to explore formalizing such guidelines, as this could enhance the efficiency and sustainability of DAO treasury operations, while reducing operational friction and easing the burden associated with repeated governance proposals and approvals.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I fully support transferring stablecoins to ATMC, as this provides direct yield.
On the other hand, there are a few concerns that I believe are worth highlighting:
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I fully support transferring stablecoins to ATMC, as this provides direct yield.
On the other hand, there are a few concerns that I believe are worth highlighting:
Thank you for putting this together—overall, I support the goal of utilising idle assets, especially now that the DAO has established mechanisms to manage treasury yield generation.
That said, I’d like to propose a middle-ground approach specifically for the Events Budget:
Thank you for putting this together—overall, I support the goal of utilising idle assets, especially now that the DAO has established mechanisms to manage treasury yield generation.
That said, I’d like to propose a middle-ground approach specifically for the Events Budget:
Instead of dissolving it, I suggest moving the funds under the ATMC balance to generate yield, while earmarking it for future event opportunities.
I agree with many of the points raised. However, I believe it’s valuable for the DAO to retain the option to directly support smaller, DAO-native initiatives that might not fall within the Foundation’s roadmap or the D.A.O. Grants threshold. Removing this budget entirely would eliminate a flexible tool that could be useful for unique opportunities, especially in H2.
By integrating the Events Budget into ATMC-managed strategies, we avoid leaving funds idle while preserving optionality. This approach ensures that if compelling event proposals emerge, they can be supported without requiring new budget allocations or delaying governance cycles.
In short: let’s keep the Events Budget productive, not dissolved.
Supportive.
We should think about something for the events issue (post OpCo setup) but agree that the way the events budget was structured didn't work out. So this makes sense
Hi this is Brook from TiD Research. I share the concern raised by others regarding clawing back the Events Budget without preserving any room for DAO-driven or community-initiated participation. While the Arbitrum Foundation has consistently demonstrated strong execution on marquee events, I believe there's a risk in leaving the decision-making entirely in the hands of the Foundation—especially in a fast-evolving environment like right now.
At the moment there are multiple narratives and emerging verticals in the market where delegates and community members often might have better visibility than the Foundation. These opportunities can include regionally relevant events, ecosystem-specific meetups, or narrative-aligned activations that may not be on the Foundation’s radar. If the DAO loses the ability to flag and support such events, we risk missing out on high-value opportunities that could meaningfully advance Arbitrum’s presence.
Hi this is Brook from TiD Research. I share the concern raised by others regarding clawing back the Events Budget without preserving any room for DAO-driven or community-initiated participation. While the Arbitrum Foundation has consistently demonstrated strong execution on marquee events, I believe there's a risk in leaving the decision-making entirely in the hands of the Foundation—especially in a fast-evolving environment like right now.
At the moment there are multiple narratives and emerging verticals in the market where delegates and community members often might have better visibility than the Foundation. These opportunities can include regionally relevant events, ecosystem-specific meetups, or narrative-aligned activations that may not be on the Foundation’s radar. If the DAO loses the ability to flag and support such events, we risk missing out on high-value opportunities that could meaningfully advance Arbitrum’s presence.
At the same time, I do believe that the Foundation is usually better positioned than most of us to handle the operational aspects of event planning and execution. With that in mind, perhaps a more balanced structure could be considered—one where the DAO retains a channel to propose or prioritize events, and the Foundation takes on execution.
This kind of setup would give the DAO a voice in shaping where Arbitrum shows up, without slowing things down or overcomplicating execution. Curious to hear what others think—or if anyone’s seen similar setups work well in other ecosystems.
Thanks for putting this forward — we’re strongly aligned with the spirit and direction of this proposal.
Thanks for putting this forward — we’re strongly aligned with the spirit and direction of this proposal.
After observing the first few attempts to pull funds from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget, Entropy has concluded that it is in the DAO’s best interest to relinquish large events and major sponsorships decisions to the Foundation
We fully agree with this assessment. Earlier in the year, we supported a more structured, DAO-led process for events, but it's become clear that the Arbitrum Foundation is in a better position to lead on this front. They have the resources, network, and strategic alignment to convert events into meaningful ecosystem growth — something the DAO, at least in its current form, isn’t optimised for.
This was a worthwhile experiment, and we appreciate its intent. That said, we’re now in favour of cutting our losses and recovering whatever funds are left.
However, now that the funds have already been converted from ARB into stablecoins, there is no sense in sending these funds back to the treasury to sit idle
Again, this makes sense to us. Since the funds are already in stablecoins and the ARDC is no longer active, folding these into the ATMC’s treasury management efforts is a logical next step.
We also support redirecting unused ADPC Security Subsidy funds to the ATMC once outstanding commitments are fulfilled. These funds were initially earmarked for valuable initiatives, but have since sat idle — putting them to work is the pragmatic move.
While the amounts may be relatively small and not significantly contribute to the runway, it's about building better habits around fund stewardship and signalling a commitment to the DAO's long-term sustainability. This is a step in the right direction: improving capital efficiency, optimising costs, and taking a more proactive approach to treasury management.
Thank you for this proposal, Entropy — it's a pragmatic step toward optimizing the DAO's idle assets and ensuring they're put to productive use through the ATMC's stablecoin strategies. As a delegate, I support the underlying goal of consolidating these funds to generate yield and bolster Arbitrum's financial sustainability, especially given the rationale around events execution and the inefficiencies observed so far.
That said, while the ideas here align well overall, I believe the proposal would benefit from being split into separate votes for each component: one for the Events Budget dissolution, another for the ARDC v2 funds, and a third for the ADPC Security Subsidies remainder. This modular approach would allow delegates to evaluate and approve each on its merits, avoiding the risk of bundling strong elements with potentially contentious ones and ensuring more targeted governance.
Appreciate Entropy’s proactive effort in addressing the fragmentation of unused USDC across expired or inactive initiatives.
This proposal will help improve capital efficiency in Arbitrum’s treasury while keeping things safe and under proper governance.
Appreciate Entropy’s proactive effort in addressing the fragmentation of unused USDC across expired or inactive initiatives.
This proposal will help improve capital efficiency in Arbitrum’s treasury while keeping things safe and under proper governance.
Instead of letting funds sit around in separate, underused budgets, consolidating them into a single strategic wallet makes it easier to track performance and manage them effectively.
Also, DAO is shifting from a grant-heavy toward a more sustainable finance model using existing assets to generate long term yield. This will reduce the need to sell ARB and helps strengthen the DAO’s yield layer.
Just small concern, about the events part, I agree that scattered and uncoordinated efforts without a clear strategy can be confusing and ineffective. But since there’s still a large portion of the budget left, I’m curious if are there any events already being planned that haven’t launched yet? If we suddenly pull funding, it might disrupt ongoing work.
Just want to make sure Entropy has coordinated with the involved parties before we vote.
gm, overall in support of the initiative.
A couple of notes:
:white_check_mark: Dissolve DAO’s 2025 Events Budget: I also think the Foundation is better suited to manage larger events (the Arbiverse editions I’ve attended were impressive for example).
gm, overall in support of the initiative.
A couple of notes:
:white_check_mark: Dissolve DAO’s 2025 Events Budget: I also think the Foundation is better suited to manage larger events (the Arbiverse editions I’ve attended were impressive for example).
Given that tasks and accountability are being shuffled, I believe we need a clear overview of which AAE handles what, with defined responsibilities and contact points.
:white_check_mark: ARDC Budget: In favor of allocating it to yield generating opportunities, or better to help new protocols bootstrap their initial liquidity.
:red_question_mark: ADPC Security Subsidies: shouldn’t this budget be allocated instead to the new audit-sponsored initiative by the @Arbitrum Foundation?
Thank you for this proposal, Entropy — it's a pragmatic step toward optimizing the DAO's idle assets and ensuring they're put to productive use through the ATMC's stablecoin strategies. As a delegate, I support the underlying goal of consolidating these funds to generate yield and bolster Arbitrum's financial sustainability, especially given the rationale around events execution and the inefficiencies observed so far.
That said, while the ideas here align well overall, I believe the proposal would benefit from being split into separate votes for each component: one for the Events Budget dissolution, another for the ARDC v2 funds, and a third for the ADPC Security Subsidies remainder. This modular approach would allow delegates to evaluate and approve each on its merits, avoiding the risk of bundling strong elements with potentially contentious ones and ensuring more targeted governance.
I'm optimistic about the potential here and look forward to seeing how this evolves in the discussion!
Thank you for this proposal, Entropy — it's a pragmatic step toward optimizing the DAO's idle assets and ensuring they're put to productive use through the ATMC's stablecoin strategies. As a delegate, I support the underlying goal of consolidating these funds to generate yield and bolster Arbitrum's financial sustainability, especially given the rationale around events execution and the inefficiencies observed so far.
That said, while the ideas here align well overall, I believe the proposal would benefit from being split into separate votes for each component: one for the Events Budget dissolution, another for the ARDC v2 funds, and a third for the ADPC Security Subsidies remainder. This modular approach would allow delegates to evaluate and approve each on its merits, avoiding the risk of bundling strong elements with potentially contentious ones and ensuring more targeted governance.
I'm optimistic about the potential here and look forward to seeing how this evolves in the discussion!
