February 2024 Voting Updates
[Non-Constitutional]: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We believe that one predominant way by which DAOs mature and become sustainable organizations is by establishing a strong runway in the form of a diversified portfolio of assets. Selling off $ARB tokens for ensuring Arbitrum’s future success is an important financing lever. So far, most initiatives that we’ve seen in the past year have revolved around grants. These initiatives are important, but they should be balanced by making sure the protocol remains sustainable with a multi-year horizon.
The forum post raises good points around having a clear and informed roadmap for how the treasury will be deployed. The DAO is, in the short term, not strapped for cash. There’s no immediate need to cover particular expenses, so one could argue that it’s worth waiting before the DAO sells off ARB for RWAs. The best time to reduce native token exposure is when the markets are most frothy. This way, during the bull market, ARB can be sold at a higher price, and those reserves can be rotated into RWAs since stable assets are best held onto during drawdowns. This particular proposal acts simply as a pilot program, so it’s important to highlight that the diversification effort won’t happen immediately–it’s using an insignificant amount of capital relative to the entire DAO treasury. The sourcing component of this proposal is therefore most compelling to us. We’d rather have the DAO be in a position to buy and sell assets effectively, even if the bulk of that diversification effort will occur later on.
Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
We are excited to see these elected members lead the first iteration of the Procurement committee and our reasoning is in line with our prior Snapshot vote.
[Constitutional] Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We are in favor as many of these changes operationally enhance the process. The introduction of a dedicated 7-day “Contender Submission” stage ensures more opportunities for all candidates to get their submissions in, giving potential candidates more chances to be noticed and considered. Secondly, the requirement for candidates to provide a signed message from their wallets is great with respect to the security and integrity of the election process. The proposed updates to the constitution’s wording about the election process and quorum handling, including ‘abstain’ votes, are vital for clarity and transparency. In summary, these changes should create a more equitable and transparent election structure.
Long Term Incentives Pilot Program
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
Our reasoning stays the same as prior. We are excited that the program will be represented by such talented reviewers.
AIP: ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas”
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We’re excited for these network upgrades and thank the core devs for their hard work. The ability to leverage EIP 4844 to post batches of L2 transactions as blobs on L1 at cheaper rates will be super useful and we’re also looking forward to updates from Dencun.
AIP: Batch Poster Manager and Sequencer Inbox Finality Fix
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
Similar to the other snapshot vote on ArbOS Version 20, we are in favor of this sequencer finality fix and again thank the core devs for their hard work.
Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
We voted FOR this proposal since v2 brings clear improvement to the initial proposal from a couple of months ago. Retroactive rewards, we believe, are important for showing appreciation to initial contributors.
Generally speaking, community management is not an easy task, and the allotted compensation to these contributors seems reasonable–the reduction of the ARB distribution should make this easier to pass at the onchain stage. The transparency in who contributed to the community efforts is also appreciated. Previously, we stated that “as far as where this proposal is in its current state, it doesn’t seem to sufficiently outline the details behind who will be distributed the stated $ARB rewards. Since there seems to be a cap of 25 recipients, it would be best to first outline those names explicitly for transparency purposes BEFORE going forward with a vote.” V2 addresses these concerns to a degree. We understand that collecting data for this topic is not the easiest task and that screenshots of contributions are a non-customary form of collecting data–but we cannot think of a more effective mechanism, so we’ll resort to deeming this acceptable. Another point of feedback is that the proposal format here was a bit messy. We’d recommend that proposers in the future make their data more formatted and a bit easier to follow.
Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2
Vote: Against
Type: Snapshot
We voted against this proposal because it doesn’t seem befitting to request funding directly through the DAO on a one-off basis.
The game looks pretty cool. Seems like an interesting initiative that likely would’ve been funded by Questbook. From reading over the forums, it seems that “Ali was the first founder to apply AFTER the Gaming Domain was fully allocated and as a result was not able to funded in the first round of Questbook grants.” So, this proposal seems to be an attempt at attaining funding from the DAO since the grant program ran out of allocations. Although the DAO could give case-by-case funding exemptions, we believe that this practice is very much a slippery slope. To preserve a standard for the DAO, regardless of the degree of promise presented by a project, the developing team should seek alternative forms of funding apart from the DAO. It seems thechaingamer.eth is now looking to create a developer grant framework for games, which to us, is a much more promising endeavor. This would reduce the DAO’s overall overhead, prevent bias toward individual project selection, and create a standardized structure for project evaluation.
Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
As per our Snapshot vote, we voted in favor of this proposal since the stated “changes should create a more equitable and transparent election structure.”