September 2024 Voting Updates
Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
Vote: For
Type: On Chain
We are in favor of the proposal as a whole, and with the new changes, we are in full support.
[Constitutional] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
This update allows for appropriate timing in case of an upgrade that is unfavorable for people to bridge off chain using the 7 day native bridge. We are in favor.
STIP-Bridge Operational Budget
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
This vote seems somewhat useless, we are wholly in favor and not totally sure why we are voting again for something governance already approved.
[Replace Oversight Committee with MSS] Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
These changes to the multisig are advantageous to the DAO as a whole and we are a fan of the inclusion of the MSS, reducing overall costs.
[Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request
Vote: Abstain
Type: Snapshot
We voted abstain on this proposal because it presents an isolated case where Pyth alone would attain an extension. If extensions are to be given, this should be conducted in a collective and orderly manner, not in a one-off manner. The DAO also voted to pause incentives for a period of time to reflect and analyze the results and efficacy of previous programs. Introducing an extension detracts from that goal.
Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We voted For this proposal and believe that it’s a no-brainer. The constitutional process behind this shows a degree of potential inefficiencies for the DAO. More migrations is net positive for Arbitrum. However, if the degree of friction behind conducting these is high, Arbitrum is likely missing out on attracting projects simply due to these inefficiencies.
Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request
Vote: Abstain
Type: Snapshot
Our reasoning here is identical with our feedback on the similar Pyth proposal. We voted abstain on this proposal because it presents an isolated case where Synthetix alone would attain an extension. If extensions are to be given, this should be conducted in a collective and orderly manner, not in a one-off manner. The DAO also voted to pause incentives for a period of time to reflect and analyze the results and efficacy of previous programs. Introducing an extension detracts from that goal.
Fund the Stylus Sprint
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We voted For this proposal since it allows Arbitrum to double-down on factors that enable the L2 to differentiate itself from its peers. The flexibility provisioned by Stylus allows for developers from different ecosystems to consider developing on Arbitrum, taking advantage of the existing network effects surrounding liquidity and applications. The Entropy team has addressed concerns around tracking and KPIs, which is in our eyes the number one concern with these grant programs. Long-term continuation and awareness of the program are the following concerns. It’s good to see that marketing is not overlooked. The beauty of Stylus is that outreach to developers not just in the blockchain space but also in other areas can yield strong traction for Arbitrum. We’d like to see a concerted effort around attaining and thereafter retaining talent that’s drawn from this program. The scope for who is targeted during outreach can be wider than other grant programs as well. As for a RPGF initiative for sustaining talent, this can be addressed in a follow up proposal—but the team should begin outlining this structure over the next couple of months. Ecosystems like Solana have increased their liquidity, base-level tech, and ecosystem vibrancy over the past year. Builders truly need an incentive and a roadmap to continue building in a particular ecosystem. If Arbitrum isn’t able to provide that kind of support, the builders will simply journey to where the incentives are compelling.
[Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request
Vote: Against
Type: Snapshot
Allowing Aave to come in after all other incentives are allocated on first look doesn’t seem great. Given all of the challenges the team faced technically, this was a harder decision, but seeing the response and appetite of votes, we think this is appropriate.
Constitutional AIP: Proposal to adopt Timeboost, a new transaction ordering policy
Vote: Collect Bids in ETH
Type: Snapshot
This is a great fundamental step forward for the DAO. We think bids should be collected in ETH to allow for a future consistent non-ARB revenue stream for the DAO.
ArbitrumDAO Off-site
Vote: IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/conference/no scholarships, Online event, IRL/separate/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain
Type: Snapshot
We are a fan of having a IRL event that is next to a large conference, providing sponsorships when necessary. This should be relatively cost effective. We think the next best is an online event and afterwards, if needed, a separate standalone event could be planned.
Terms of Tenure for STEP program manager
Vote: Additional funds for one year, 6 months from available funds, Liquidation of RWAs and STEP, New election at $86,581 per year, Abstain
Type: Snapshot
We voted for Additional funds for one year, 6 months from available funds, Liquidation of RWAs and STEP, New election at $86,581 per year, Abstain—in that order. Liabilities must be paid in correspondence with the dollar amount elected upon passing of proposals. There is no need to return to ground zero, so the continuation with Steakhouse is prudent.
GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We voted For both the snapshot and the onchain vote here. Generally, we’re more in favor of a long-term, structured approach, as opposed to one where events are planned and paid for ad hoc. However, due to the impending deadline for setting up the event for Devcon, we thought passing this proposal, as was done with Eth CC, was the right move. We are curious to hear further communications from Klaus and team regarding the decision to cancel this proposal.
[Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
With a degree of reluctance, we voted For this proposal. It’s often difficult to say No to such a large stakeholder since the work that they conduct is often critical. The AF plays an instrumental role in facilitating the effective continuation and development of the DAO and protocol. They have numerous existing relationships that cannot be easily outsourced and programs that require sustained funding. In that vein, we do think that the AF should have taken into account the large portion of ARB that is vested. Such budgeting would mean that a liquidity crunch for grants and partnerships would have led to better management and allocation of funds. However, due to NDAs and other variables that lead to a lack of full transparency, it’s hard to tell exactly why such budgeting decisions were made. A future plan should be implemented by the AF to reimburse the DAO at some point using the tokens that eventually vest, as opposed to continuing to grow their expenditure on grants. In other words, we are not seeing this as a growth program—but a temporary solution to liquidity issues.
[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program
Vote: FOR - DIP V1.5
Type: Snapshot
Due to the increased participation in voting and engagement on forums as a result of the delegate incentive program, we are directionally in favor of this proposal. V1.5 makes more sense to incorporate over v1.1 since 1.5 attempts to encourage more proactive and natural conversation than 1.1. The old model, to an extent, can feel forced. Our team has sometimes felt this way as well. It is also more valuable for proposers to attain feedback early on before going to a vote. Delegates also change their behavior on forums with the 1.5 setup since they are now actively perusing through open discussions as opposed to solely justifying votes.
August Delegate Incentive Program
The UADP received its fourth delegate incentive from the Arbitrum DAO’s Delegate Incentive Program.
A total of 4,427.5 ARB was sent to our multisig (0x8326D18edfC50B4335113C33b25116ec268FF3fE). This amount is based on a couple of criteria: snapshot participation, onchain participation, communicating rationale behind the votes, and productive forum conversation, based on the quality of the feedback provided on the forums.
This first initiative is a 6 month period with goals to renew it continuously. We are splitting these tokens in the following manner:
- 50% of the ARB stays with the UADP multisig for the sake of increasing the longevity of this program with the goal of one day self being self funded.
- 50% is split evenly among the two UADP contributors
We will communicate future monthly delegate “scores” and incentives in this thread going forward.