Generally speaking, all for the DAO managing its treasury a bit more actively: there is no point in the DAO holding some tokens collected as fees over time and never selling them back into ETH/stables and then experiencing massive drawdowns on them (eg JEWEL or GOHM).
I am also in favour of the DAO using part of its treasury, including ARB, to be managed along the same lines: although I would never compare ARB with the tokens mentioned above, I think it makes sense to avoid assets/liabilities mismatch. With liabilities being here what is spent by the DAO i.e. gas (mainly ETH), stables (for the Foundation and Interop.), etc.
On the proposal more precisely, I do think the DAO creating an incentive program to attrack builders on the chain makes a lot of sense and, as a tokenholder / community member, I would vote in favour of it. Having the program targeted towards builders also make more sense to me than farmers.
However, not too much of a big fan of using other assets to buy SYN right now. Especially if those SYN tokens are then used as incentives which means they will be sold again by the recipients of such incentives. Additionally, any sell of ARB into SYN will be heavily frontran resulting in slippage for the DAO (ARB is liquid enough for this to have 0 impact, SYN is not).
Additionally, the treasury is already automatically accumulating a bit of SYN (via fees on SYN bridging) and, does own some SYN via the SYN/ETH LP currently in Sushiswap. The DAO owning too much of its own token does carry some downside risks.
Thoughts on having a two step proposal on
- Vote 1: Whether the DAO sells for ex ARB into ETH and create an incentive program with ETH or SYN
- Vote 2: Whether the DAO sells that ETH into SYN for the incentive program (or keeps it as ETH)