I probably share sentiment with others that while I agree with the ARB sell, it was also something that felt reactive then proactive. I’d personally like to see a more proactive approach to the treasury. My concern being mid to long term funding of the project, as we are currently funding fixed costs with tokens that fluctuate at the whim of the market.
Specific to the proposal, I think there is a lot of good info / things to think about. Some form of a treasury framework I believe should be considered. And I think there would be stability to having ‘x’ number of months / years guaranteed to be funded through stable coins. This is a growing project that isn’t even fully completed yet, so net outflows isn’t super concerning… yet… but that doesn’t mean we have to 100% rely on HOP tokens and airdrops. Which given recent price action can be concerning if the trend doesn’t reverse.
I discussed some ideas in the other RFC ([RFC] Treasury Diversification - #14 by Bob-Rossi), as ultimately, I wonder if the end goal may be somewhere between reactive sell-offs and a full-on coordination with an outside company. We are ultimately a small project, and we may still be able to get away with a high-level framework that is monitored periodically.
With that in mind, I have voted for moving the discussion forward. As while I’m not 100% sold on the entire idea due to HOP’s size, I do still believe this discussion is worth continuing and would like to hear other input. We are small enough I’m undecided if we need an entire outside consultation versus a framework, but I’d be curious enough to at least encourage the conversation to continue.