The 100 million ARB in the headline isn’t the whole story of this proposal.

The original proposal posted on the Arbitrum forum on October 6 covered more than a request for an additional 100 million $ARB for DRIP incentives. It also proposed deploying existing ATMC assets to USDG, transferring AEP net fees to USDG after deducting the agreed revenue share, and making related management arrangements.

These are matters proposed in the document; they should not be described as funds already having been disbursed, nor should the full scope of the authorization be summed up by the subsidy figure alone. How much is spent as a one-time allocation, how existing assets are deployed, and where future revenue goes are decisions at different levels.

When Lao Yao reviews governance proposals, he first considers the additional budget, existing assets, and future revenue separately, then assesses whether the scope of the authorization is clear. Whether the budget is large should be judged in the context of the full set of terms.

When you vote on governance proposals, do you read through how the funds will be used, or focus only on the number in the headline?

For personal market observations only; not investment advice.
#Arbitrum提案寻求1亿枚ARB推动USDG采用