TLDR; The TMC recommends that the DAO votes for #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy
The four possible combined outcomes are:
If no ARB is deployed (#4 Deploy Nothing, Abstain win), we will make the necessary modifications and resubmit the proposal for another vote.
The vote will be conducted via Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): Rank options; results use instant-runoff counting.
The TMC has divided the partner selection into two groups: one for managing the stablecoin allocation—which covers converting ARB tokens to stablecoins and their ongoing management—and one for managing the ARB allocation for on-chain strategies.
Specifically, the plan is to convert 15M ARB into stablecoins and manage those on-chain, while the remaining 10M ARB is deployed on on-chain ARB-only strategies.
Further information on the TMC mandate can be found here: Tally | Arbitrum | Treasury Management V1.2
Stablecoin Allocation (15M ARB Equivalent)
Partner Selection:
Allocation Strategy: The stablecoin management responsibilities will be evenly split among the three partners with a 33/33/33 distribution, ensuring diversification and balanced risk exposure while meeting the conversion and liquidity objectives.
ARB Allocation (10M ARB)
Partner Selection:
Allocation Strategy: The on-chain ARB strategy will be managed equally by the two partners using a 50/50 split. Their proposals leverage proven DeFi protocols and ecosystem synergies to maximize risk-adjusted returns while maintaining liquidity and principal protection.
We recommend a vote of YES for the Stablecoin Allocation and NO for the ARB Allocation.
Our analysis shows that the stablecoin strategies presented by the selected partners meet our criteria for DAO alignment, returns, risk management, etc.
Whereas the current ARB proposals lack sufficient risk management and clear operational details—resulting in low yield projections—we believe it is prudent to sit out on this allocation for now.
Please cast your vote on each allocation separately. Your options are as follows:
Stablecoin Strategy Allocation Vote:
ARB Strategy Allocation Vote:
The four possible combined outcomes are:
We recommend that the DAO votes for #3 YES, deploy the Stable Strategy /// NO, do not deploy the ARB Strategy.
The vote will be conducted via Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): Rank options; results use instant-runoff counting.
Note. The first vote corresponds to the Stablecoin Allocation and the second to the ARB Allocation.
During our review process, we evaluated several proposals that ultimately did not meet the criteria, required further clarity, or didn’t align with DAO objectives.
AnthiasLabs x XBTO: Their proposal did not provide adequate detail on stablecoin conversion, DAO alignment, or custody arrangements, which are critical to our objectives.
August Digital: While proposing a single-sided AMM strategy for both ARB yield and ARB-to-USD conversion, the proposal provided minimal details. There was no evidence of existing ARB strategies or a dedicated vault, and the timeline for necessary audits—if smart contracts are involved—was not addressed. Moreover, the risk management section appeared generic, with much of the content seemingly repurposed from other contexts.
Bracket Labs: The submission lacked clarity on key operational components, such as the choice of OTC counterparties or DEXes. Additionally, the rationale behind the 2% trading volume figure and the associated price impact considerations were not explained. Although a Stablecoin Vault is reportedly live, the lack of public transparency and reliance on historical yield figures from related funds (rather than the target vault) were significant concerns, compounded by high fee structures.
WINR: The implementation details were insufficient, leading to concerns over the alignment of risk and reward.
Stablecoin Strategies: Providers like Karpatkey, Avantgarde/MYSO, and Gauntlet stood out due to their provided backtests, clear execution plans, compensation structure, and risk management frameworks.
We have high confidence in their ability to execute the conversion of 15M ARB into stablecoins with minimal slippage and market impact.
As well as deploy these assets in well-established, low-risk protocols—aligned with the intended use of funds. The shortlisted proposals target an average yield of 8% to 12% under varying market conditions while primarily holding USDC and USDT.
This is why we’re recommending a YES vote on the stablecoin allocation.
Below is a summary of the strategies, including fees and expected returns. Please refer to the tables for full details and note the associated risks outlined below.
Note that strategies might share the same general risks, and differences in returns may come down to how effectively the providers optimize yield under varying market conditions.
There are no guarantees or risk-sharing by the providers. As described below, fees are based on the allocation of assets to each provider and/or their performance.
Note that for the Arbitrum Strategy, while both applicants use Myso they have wildly different reported return profiles (hence different risk profiles).
Stablecoin Strategy
| Stablecoin Strategy | Protocols Used | Exp. Returns | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gauntlet | AAVE V3 | 8% | Free |
| Karpatkey | Uniswap v3, Camelot v3, Balancer v2/v3, GMX, Aave v3, Compound v3, Fluid, Vertex (Perps), Pendle (Yield) | 12-20% | 0.5% management |
| AvantGarde/MYSO | AAVE V3, Compound (core), Pendle, Fluid, and Uni v3 (satellite) | 5-15% | 0.5% / 10% management/performance |
Arbitrum Strategy
| Arbitrum Strategy | Protocols Used | Exp. Returns | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karpatkey | Myso | 7-20% | 0.5% mgnt |
| Avantgarde/MYSO | Myso | 30%+ | 15% perf |
ARB Strategies: When it comes to the ARB proposals, our review was less encouraging. Although there are some promising elements—for instance, Karpatkey and Avantgarde/MYSO show potential—the ARB strategies did not meet our strict criteria for transparency and risk mitigation. Our internal grading highlighted significant concerns:
Given these trade-offs, we believe the risk is not justified for an allocation of $7.5M worth of assets. Until proposals can deliver fully detailed strategies that meet our risk-adjusted return standards, it’s prudent to vote NO for the ARB allocation.
Arbitrum Alignment Consideration: A key criterion for evaluating submissions was alignment with Arbitrum. While most strategies will be executed on the Arbitrum network, not all will involve Arbitrum native protocols.
There are multiple reasons for this but the main ones are the absence of proposals by Arbitrum native protocols and the fact that most liquidity on Arbitrum is on non-native protocols, making it difficult to allocate a large amount of stablecoin while retaining a competitive yield.
Given the dearth of sufficient proposals, our recommendation is to do nothing rather than something not justifiable from a risk-reward perspective.
Further Clarification on the Shortlisted Rationale
Hello everyone,
First, we want to sincerely thank the teams at @avantgarde, @karpatkey, and Myso for taking the time to discuss their proposals in greater detail with us. We appreciate your proactive approach and the thoughtful contributions you have made, both privately and in the forum.
Below, we provide additional context on our recommendation to defer active deployment of the ARB allocation at this time, along with feedback on each proposal’s approach and risk management.
While both teams have made significant efforts, the operational details for the ARB strategies, such as liquidity for options, counterparty arrangements, and daily/weekly execution, remain unclear. Given the large ARB allocation, this uncertainty makes us cautious.
The proposed yields for ARB strategies vary widely, ranging from near zero (for example, simple lending) to around 30% (for example, covered calls). However, the higher-yield strategies depend on liquidity or counterparties that may not be scalable, and the lower-yield approaches (for example, 0.16% on Aave) do not justify the additional complexity and risk.
It’s important to note that selecting an asset manager for alpha generation typically requires a multi-year to decade-long track record across multiple market regimes, a challenging standard, even in traditional finance. Therefore, if the core ARB strategy cannot stand on its own merits, claims of expertise should not serve as the primary selection criteria.
Our mandate is to protect the DAO's treasury. Rather than forcing a strategy with an uncertain risk and reward profile, we prefer to hold ARB until more robust proposals/strategies emerge. This is a postponement rather than a permanent refusal, and we remain open to future improvements.
We appreciate Karpatkey’s detailed Risk Management Plan, which includes non-custodial architecture (Safe + Zodiac Roles Modifier), protocol whitelisting (Aave, Compound, Dolomite, Fluid, etc.), and clear maximum exposure thresholds (e.g., no more than 20–25% per protocol).
The yield estimates of ~8–12% for stablecoins appear realistic, and Karpatkey’s track record in managing other DAO treasuries (Gnosis, ENS, etc.) is well-documented.
Karpatkey proposes covered calls (via Myso) and deposit/borrow loops. While these ideas are valid in principle, the TMC remains concerned about the practical scalability of the options component (liquidity, strike selection, and counterparty discovery at large ARB notional sizes).
The lending-based approach offers minimal yield (~0.16% to ~4%), which does not justify the operational overhead or the added smart contract risk compared to simply holding ARB in a wallet. The covered-call approach is also sensitive to ARB price and carries risk in case of price appreciation as the cost of reimbursing the loan could exceed the value of the stablecoins used for farming. The backtest is based on a period of constant ARB price depreciation and therefore may not fully reflect this risk.
Although Karpatkey mentions having advanced monitoring systems to respond promptly to adverse market conditions, we lack sufficient visibility into these tools to confidently recommend this approach to the DAO.
The Risk Management section shared by Avantgarde (and MYSO) highlights position-sizing constraints, lockup safeguards, and a diversified stablecoin approach. We especially appreciate the plan’s clarity on monitoring liquidity needs and the ability for the DAO to recall funds if necessary.
Expected returns of 5–15% are in line with typical DeFi yields, and the approach includes established protocols such as Aave, Compound, and Uniswap.
Similar to Karpatkey, Avantgarde’s ARB strategy also leans heavily on covered calls (via Myso) for yield generation. Although the theoretical upside is attractive, we lack sufficient real-world liquidity data for large ARB notional amounts. In addition to the conversion risk, the strategy presents a risk in case of a sharp ARB price increase (which again may not be accurately accounted for in backtests done over a period of relatively constant price depreciation). For instance, vaults on Ribbon and Premia also rely on selling covered calls and have recently incurred losses despite both vaults having widely different strategies, following sharp increases in the price of the underlying assets:
https://app.ribbon.finance/v2/theta-vault/T-ETH-C
https://app.ribbon.finance/v2/theta-vault/T-WBTC-C
https://app.premia.blue/vaults/0xdc631d88dbb5eb39f5c4bf8b4e5298d098912fff
We value the team’s willingness to iterate on strike selection and maturity dates, but given current market conditions, we do not see a clear, low-risk path to consistent yields above simple “hold” alternatives.
Our evaluation of proposals was based on the following key factors:
We will move forward with a vote on Snapshot next Thursday, March 6, 2025.
Phase 1 – ARB Conversion & Stablecoin Management (15M ARB)
*IF Stable Strategy is Deployed
IF Stable Strategy is not Deployed: Retain the current ARB holdings without conversion. No further actions will be taken regarding stablecoin management until a new decision is reached.
Phase 2 – ARB On-Chain Strategy Deployment (10M ARB)
IF ARB Strategy is Deployed:
IF ARB Strategy is not Deployed:
Additional Next Steps for Both Allocations Three months after the managers have been elected, publish a comprehensive report detailing the performance and management outcomes and re-evaluate the allocation strategy for potential adjustments.
TLDR; The TMC recommends that the DAO votes for #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy
The four possible combined outcomes are:
If no ARB is deployed (#4 Deploy Nothing, Abstain win), we will make the necessary modifications and resubmit the proposal for another vote.
The vote will be conducted via Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): Rank options; results use instant-runoff counting.
The TMC has divided the partner selection into two groups: one for managing the stablecoin allocation—which covers converting ARB tokens to stablecoins and their ongoing management—and one for managing the ARB allocation for on-chain strategies.
Specifically, the plan is to convert 15M ARB into stablecoins and manage those on-chain, while the remaining 10M ARB is deployed on on-chain ARB-only strategies.
Further information on the TMC mandate can be found here: Tally | Arbitrum | Treasury Management V1.2
Stablecoin Allocation (15M ARB Equivalent)
Partner Selection:
Allocation Strategy: The stablecoin management responsibilities will be evenly split among the three partners with a 33/33/33 distribution, ensuring diversification and balanced risk exposure while meeting the conversion and liquidity objectives.
ARB Allocation (10M ARB)
Partner Selection:
Allocation Strategy: The on-chain ARB strategy will be managed equally by the two partners using a 50/50 split. Their proposals leverage proven DeFi protocols and ecosystem synergies to maximize risk-adjusted returns while maintaining liquidity and principal protection.
We recommend a vote of YES for the Stablecoin Allocation and NO for the ARB Allocation.
Our analysis shows that the stablecoin strategies presented by the selected partners meet our criteria for DAO alignment, returns, risk management, etc.
Whereas the current ARB proposals lack sufficient risk management and clear operational details—resulting in low yield projections—we believe it is prudent to sit out on this allocation for now.
Please cast your vote on each allocation separately. Your options are as follows:
Stablecoin Strategy Allocation Vote:
ARB Strategy Allocation Vote:
The four possible combined outcomes are:
We recommend that the DAO votes for #3 YES, deploy the Stable Strategy /// NO, do not deploy the ARB Strategy.
The vote will be conducted via Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): Rank options; results use instant-runoff counting.
Note. The first vote corresponds to the Stablecoin Allocation and the second to the ARB Allocation.
During our review process, we evaluated several proposals that ultimately did not meet the criteria, required further clarity, or didn’t align with DAO objectives.
AnthiasLabs x XBTO: Their proposal did not provide adequate detail on stablecoin conversion, DAO alignment, or custody arrangements, which are critical to our objectives.
August Digital: While proposing a single-sided AMM strategy for both ARB yield and ARB-to-USD conversion, the proposal provided minimal details. There was no evidence of existing ARB strategies or a dedicated vault, and the timeline for necessary audits—if smart contracts are involved—was not addressed. Moreover, the risk management section appeared generic, with much of the content seemingly repurposed from other contexts.
Bracket Labs: The submission lacked clarity on key operational components, such as the choice of OTC counterparties or DEXes. Additionally, the rationale behind the 2% trading volume figure and the associated price impact considerations were not explained. Although a Stablecoin Vault is reportedly live, the lack of public transparency and reliance on historical yield figures from related funds (rather than the target vault) were significant concerns, compounded by high fee structures.
WINR: The implementation details were insufficient, leading to concerns over the alignment of risk and reward.
Stablecoin Strategies: Providers like Karpatkey, Avantgarde/MYSO, and Gauntlet stood out due to their provided backtests, clear execution plans, compensation structure, and risk management frameworks.
We have high confidence in their ability to execute the conversion of 15M ARB into stablecoins with minimal slippage and market impact.
As well as deploy these assets in well-established, low-risk protocols—aligned with the intended use of funds. The shortlisted proposals target an average yield of 8% to 12% under varying market conditions while primarily holding USDC and USDT.
This is why we’re recommending a YES vote on the stablecoin allocation.
Below is a summary of the strategies, including fees and expected returns. Please refer to the tables for full details and note the associated risks outlined below.
Note that strategies might share the same general risks, and differences in returns may come down to how effectively the providers optimize yield under varying market conditions.
There are no guarantees or risk-sharing by the providers. As described below, fees are based on the allocation of assets to each provider and/or their performance.
Note that for the Arbitrum Strategy, while both applicants use Myso they have wildly different reported return profiles (hence different risk profiles).
Stablecoin Strategy
| Stablecoin Strategy | Protocols Used | Exp. Returns | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gauntlet | AAVE V3 | 8% | Free |
| Karpatkey | Uniswap v3, Camelot v3, Balancer v2/v3, GMX, Aave v3, Compound v3, Fluid, Vertex (Perps), Pendle (Yield) | 12-20% | 0.5% management |
| AvantGarde/MYSO | AAVE V3, Compound (core), Pendle, Fluid, and Uni v3 (satellite) | 5-15% | 0.5% / 10% management/performance |
Arbitrum Strategy
| Arbitrum Strategy | Protocols Used | Exp. Returns | Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karpatkey | Myso | 7-20% | 0.5% mgnt |
| Avantgarde/MYSO | Myso | 30%+ | 15% perf |
ARB Strategies: When it comes to the ARB proposals, our review was less encouraging. Although there are some promising elements—for instance, Karpatkey and Avantgarde/MYSO show potential—the ARB strategies did not meet our strict criteria for transparency and risk mitigation. Our internal grading highlighted significant concerns:
Given these trade-offs, we believe the risk is not justified for an allocation of $7.5M worth of assets. Until proposals can deliver fully detailed strategies that meet our risk-adjusted return standards, it’s prudent to vote NO for the ARB allocation.
Arbitrum Alignment Consideration: A key criterion for evaluating submissions was alignment with Arbitrum. While most strategies will be executed on the Arbitrum network, not all will involve Arbitrum native protocols.
There are multiple reasons for this but the main ones are the absence of proposals by Arbitrum native protocols and the fact that most liquidity on Arbitrum is on non-native protocols, making it difficult to allocate a large amount of stablecoin while retaining a competitive yield.
Given the dearth of sufficient proposals, our recommendation is to do nothing rather than something not justifiable from a risk-reward perspective.
Further Clarification on the Shortlisted Rationale
Hello everyone,
First, we want to sincerely thank the teams at @avantgarde, @karpatkey, and Myso for taking the time to discuss their proposals in greater detail with us. We appreciate your proactive approach and the thoughtful contributions you have made, both privately and in the forum.
Below, we provide additional context on our recommendation to defer active deployment of the ARB allocation at this time, along with feedback on each proposal’s approach and risk management.
While both teams have made significant efforts, the operational details for the ARB strategies, such as liquidity for options, counterparty arrangements, and daily/weekly execution, remain unclear. Given the large ARB allocation, this uncertainty makes us cautious.
The proposed yields for ARB strategies vary widely, ranging from near zero (for example, simple lending) to around 30% (for example, covered calls). However, the higher-yield strategies depend on liquidity or counterparties that may not be scalable, and the lower-yield approaches (for example, 0.16% on Aave) do not justify the additional complexity and risk.
It’s important to note that selecting an asset manager for alpha generation typically requires a multi-year to decade-long track record across multiple market regimes, a challenging standard, even in traditional finance. Therefore, if the core ARB strategy cannot stand on its own merits, claims of expertise should not serve as the primary selection criteria.
Our mandate is to protect the DAO's treasury. Rather than forcing a strategy with an uncertain risk and reward profile, we prefer to hold ARB until more robust proposals/strategies emerge. This is a postponement rather than a permanent refusal, and we remain open to future improvements.
We appreciate Karpatkey’s detailed Risk Management Plan, which includes non-custodial architecture (Safe + Zodiac Roles Modifier), protocol whitelisting (Aave, Compound, Dolomite, Fluid, etc.), and clear maximum exposure thresholds (e.g., no more than 20–25% per protocol).
The yield estimates of ~8–12% for stablecoins appear realistic, and Karpatkey’s track record in managing other DAO treasuries (Gnosis, ENS, etc.) is well-documented.
Karpatkey proposes covered calls (via Myso) and deposit/borrow loops. While these ideas are valid in principle, the TMC remains concerned about the practical scalability of the options component (liquidity, strike selection, and counterparty discovery at large ARB notional sizes).
The lending-based approach offers minimal yield (~0.16% to ~4%), which does not justify the operational overhead or the added smart contract risk compared to simply holding ARB in a wallet. The covered-call approach is also sensitive to ARB price and carries risk in case of price appreciation as the cost of reimbursing the loan could exceed the value of the stablecoins used for farming. The backtest is based on a period of constant ARB price depreciation and therefore may not fully reflect this risk.
Although Karpatkey mentions having advanced monitoring systems to respond promptly to adverse market conditions, we lack sufficient visibility into these tools to confidently recommend this approach to the DAO.
The Risk Management section shared by Avantgarde (and MYSO) highlights position-sizing constraints, lockup safeguards, and a diversified stablecoin approach. We especially appreciate the plan’s clarity on monitoring liquidity needs and the ability for the DAO to recall funds if necessary.
Expected returns of 5–15% are in line with typical DeFi yields, and the approach includes established protocols such as Aave, Compound, and Uniswap.
Similar to Karpatkey, Avantgarde’s ARB strategy also leans heavily on covered calls (via Myso) for yield generation. Although the theoretical upside is attractive, we lack sufficient real-world liquidity data for large ARB notional amounts. In addition to the conversion risk, the strategy presents a risk in case of a sharp ARB price increase (which again may not be accurately accounted for in backtests done over a period of relatively constant price depreciation). For instance, vaults on Ribbon and Premia also rely on selling covered calls and have recently incurred losses despite both vaults having widely different strategies, following sharp increases in the price of the underlying assets:
https://app.ribbon.finance/v2/theta-vault/T-ETH-C
https://app.ribbon.finance/v2/theta-vault/T-WBTC-C
https://app.premia.blue/vaults/0xdc631d88dbb5eb39f5c4bf8b4e5298d098912fff
We value the team’s willingness to iterate on strike selection and maturity dates, but given current market conditions, we do not see a clear, low-risk path to consistent yields above simple “hold” alternatives.
Our evaluation of proposals was based on the following key factors:
We will move forward with a vote on Snapshot next Thursday, March 6, 2025.
Phase 1 – ARB Conversion & Stablecoin Management (15M ARB)
*IF Stable Strategy is Deployed
IF Stable Strategy is not Deployed: Retain the current ARB holdings without conversion. No further actions will be taken regarding stablecoin management until a new decision is reached.
Phase 2 – ARB On-Chain Strategy Deployment (10M ARB)
IF ARB Strategy is Deployed:
IF ARB Strategy is not Deployed:
Additional Next Steps for Both Allocations Three months after the managers have been elected, publish a comprehensive report detailing the performance and management outcomes and re-evaluate the allocation strategy for potential adjustments.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/33?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/77
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/76?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/33?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/77
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/76?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/75
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/74?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/73?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/72?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/70?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/69?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/67?u=blueweb
I don’t agree with the chosen methodology to get consent from the DAO to decide this. As pointed out previously, the non-inclusion of other strategies in this recommendation is weird, merging everything in the same vote is weird, choosing to use ranked choice voting at the last minute is weird. Just too weird overall really. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/64?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/62?u=tane
Voting in line with the TMC's suggestion #3, expecting the team to go back and re-open applications for ARB strategies.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/59
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/57?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/56?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/54
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/53?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/52?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/50?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/48?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/47?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/45?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/44?u=gabriel
N/A
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/75
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/74?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/73?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/72?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/70?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/69?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/67?u=blueweb
I don’t agree with the chosen methodology to get consent from the DAO to decide this. As pointed out previously, the non-inclusion of other strategies in this recommendation is weird, merging everything in the same vote is weird, choosing to use ranked choice voting at the last minute is weird. Just too weird overall really. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/64?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/62?u=tane
Voting in line with the TMC's suggestion #3, expecting the team to go back and re-open applications for ARB strategies.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/59
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/57?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/56?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/54
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/53?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/52?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/50?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/48?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/47?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/45?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/44?u=gabriel
N/A
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/42
