Hello Arbitrum community! 404 DAO is Atlanta’s City DAO. We are a community of web3 professionals and students focused on advancing education, innovation, and adoption of blockchain technology in Atlanta. Our governance team is composed of Georgia Tech graduates, Atlanta professionals, and current Georgia Tech students. More information about our team, organization, and voting profiles can be found on our Governance Page.
In addition to our governance work, 404 DAO is the host of Web3 ATL, Atlanta’s largest web3 conference, and is the team behind the 404 Accelerator.
Delegate Statement
The goal of the Arbitrum DAO is to facilitate the success of the Arbitrum network. We believe the DAO should prioritize the following objectives in the support of the aforementioned goal:
Ensure the critical infrastructure and technical mechanisms are developed to enhance user experience, security, and decentralization.
Support the existing projects and protocols that contributed to Arbitrum’s initial success while also incentivizing new users to build on the protocol.
Take a conservative approach to incentivize activity. We believe that implementing thoughtful and well-detailed requirements for grants and incentive programs is crucial to ensuring Arbitrum doesn’t become reliant on subsidized activity.
Skills and Areas of Expertise:
Our team encompasses a wide range of both technical and non-technical backgrounds. These range from analytics and business development to cybersecurity and MEV. The 404 DAO governance team is composed primarily of current and former Georgia Tech students with a wide range of degrees including: Computer Science, Data Science, Business, Finance, Cybersecurity that makes us uniquely able to apply expertise in a wide range of interdisciplinary challenges.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest:
404 DAO is also an active delegate in the Optimism DAO and Uniswap DAO. When necessary, we will also disclose other conflicts of interest and at times abstain from voting.
We voted FOR Blockworks/Delphi Digital. Blockworks Research has shown consistent support for Arbitrum DAO and we are excited to see more involvement from Delphi in the near future. Overall, this is an extremely strong partnership.
We voted 100% FOR L2Beat/Ant Federeration. L2Beat has been a longstanding committed member of Arbitrum DAO and we are confident in their abilities to uphold the best interests of the DAO for the ARDC programs.
We voted 75% FOR Zellic and 25% Open Zeppelin. There were several strong candidates for this election and we believe many of them would do a great job. Zellic has particularly excelled over the last 24 months and OZ has been a long-trusted security provider for the EF.
We voted FOR Elect Chaos Labs. Chaos Labs is a highly reputable name in the risk management space and we are excited to have them on the ARDC. We hope to see more applicants for this position going forward but have full confidence in the Chaos Labs team.
We voted FOR as we see the Questbooks program as an important pillar in Arbitrum’s grant ecosystem. Overall we believe their successful work justifies the increase in the program’s cost, but we do agree with some of the other delegates on introducing term limits for domain allocators and determining compensation based on a fixed amount rather than hourly.
We voted FOR this proposal. A user-friendly interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime is important so that non-developer users can appropriately mitigate risk. We are pleased with the updates Gonzacolo made to the proposal after speaking with DAO members and taking their feedback into consideration, including adding more context about why this proposal is needed and updating the project’s milestones.
While this would require a substantial investment from the DAO, but in terms of funding and time, we believe it is necessary. If we ask what sector Arbitrum holds a competitive edge in, the first that comes to mind is undoubtably DeFi and in our opinion the 2nd is gaming. As competition from other L2s continues to ramp up, we think it makes sense to strategically double-down on the sectors Arbitrum already holds an advantage in. The authors of this proposal have done a good job on educating delegate to while the size of this fund is necessary. Overall, we believe they have taken a long-term and forward-thinking approach and therefore have voted FOR this proposal.
We voted FOR in the Snapshot. We are pleased to see the expected rollout of new features that will improve on the governance experience and make our work as delegates easier.
We voted Abstain on this proposal. With the LTIPP council selection process now ending this upcoming Wednesday (April 3rd), our team will be engaging in more conversations to improve this proposal over the next few days.
We have voted Against this proposal. In addition to the lack of quantifiable milestones, an official board charter was not provided to the DAO before the voting period ended. After reaching out to the PL team directly, the documents shared did not include any details for how the Oversight Board will actually function.
A secondary concern our team has is the lack of detail regarding when the Milestone 1 allocation will actually be paid out. When we proposed this question on March 7th, PL responded with the following
As of today (April 1st) it appear there is is still 926k ARB allocated but not distributed from Milestone 1 in the PL mutlsig and only 188k ARB was distributed in all of March.
While we believe the intentions of the PL team are good and supportive of this grant program, we can not support the additional funding given the current set of information available to our team. With the onchain voting passing, we look forward to seeing the Oversight Board charter sometime soon.
We Voted FOR this proposal. Despite some very valid concerns regarding how compensation structure was changed post Snapshot approval, we still believe it is important that the program move forward.
We voted FOR this proposal back when it was on Snapshot a few months ago and have also voted FOR on the onchain vote. We appreciate the valuable work that Arbiter’s did for the community and believe this a reasonable compensation request given the data points provided.
As a LTIPP council member, we will be voting FOR on all the recommended proposals to signal our confidence in the application process and subsequent decisions resulting from the LTIPP workstream. While some of these applicants are not ones we originally recommended to the DAO, we respect the overall outcome of the LTIPP Council’s review and support the funding of their grant requests.
Our team has been providing feedback to Event Horizon regarding their proposal to delegate to a public good citizen enfranchisement pool. We have posted this proposal to Snapshot on their behalf to gather additional opinions from the DAO.
Based on the scope of this proposal, we have decided to vote FOR “1 cohort of 8 weeks, $2.5M fund” as we would like to see the results of a first cohort before funding multiple. We are supportive of a security audit subsidy and have seen similar ideas on funding ecosystem wide support services for new projects. However, we do share some concerns on the size of the fund, cost per audit, and current structure and are pleased to see the ADPC working to address these concerns since the successful passing of the Snapshot vote. Overall we believe the best path forward is testing + iteration.
As mentioned above, we have been working with the Event Horizon team to help them refine their proposal and posted it to Snapshot on their behalf. We have voted FOR with posted reasoning below:
We have voted FOR funding a contribution to DEF and CoinCenter with the following allocation “12.5% 500,000 and 87.5% 1,000,000”. The work done by DEF and Coin Center is critical to the longevity and success of the crypto industry. As a leader in the industry, we believe Arbitrum should signal a position of strength and support for these efforts.
The split between 12.5% and 87.5% was the result of internal opinions by 404 DAO team members on how much funding should go to these efforts. Given the way the Snapshot was set up, we were able to directly reflect each member’s opinion vs our normal procedure of a majority opinion.