404 DAO Delegate Communication Thread

[404DAO]

Delegate ENS Address: 404gov.eth
Delegate Address: 0xE93D59CC0bcECFD4ac204827eF67c5266079E2b5
Forum Handle: @404DAO
Team Member Handles: @Cole_404, @RikaGoldberg, @0xTraub
Email: governance@404dao.io
Website: https://www.404dao.io/
Twitter: x.com

About Us

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.

[404DAO]

[Non-constitutional] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge) (Snapshot)

We voted ABSTAIN with the below reasoning posted in the proposal’s thread:

@404DAO

Thank you @DisruptionJoe and @thrivegiraffe for answering our questions above, we greatly appreciate the additional details!

At this time our team is still reviewing the documents & sheets provided by PL in their Milestone 1 Review , the January Report , and the information provided above and have therefore voted ABSTAIN in the snapshot.

We look forward to seeing more data points outlined in the upcoming February report as well as the advisory board charter before the onchain vote. Additionally, like @cattin, we would value quantifiable objectives wherever possible and KPIs based on the winners of Milestone 1a. Overall, the Grow, Coach, Cut approach is a great strategy but for it to be effective we strongly believe it needs these quantifiable measuring points.

[404DAO]

ARDC Research Member Election (Snapshot)

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.

ARDC DAO Advocate Election (Snapshot)

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.

ARDC Security Member Election (Snapshot)

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.

ARDC Risk Member Election (Snapshot)

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.

[Non-Emergency Action] Fix Fee Oversight ArbOS v20 “Atlas” (Snapshot)

We voted:

1. Set L1 surplus fee and L2 min
2. Set only L2 minimum base fee
3. Set only L1 surplus fee
4. Set neither option and cancel

[404DAO]

Explanations for our teams voting decisions for the 2nd half of March:

Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request (Snapshot)

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.

Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime (Snapshot)

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.

Catalyze Arbitrum Gaming: HADOUKEN! (Snapshot)

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.

Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO (Snapshot)

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.

Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge) (Snapshot)

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.

[404DAO]

[Non-constitutional] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge) (Tally)

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

@DisruptionJoe

Our February financial report - to be shared next week - has us at 1.14 million ARB yet to be paid out and 514k ARB unallocated after the right sizing of all programs. This amount will be deducted from the Tally request and rolled into Milestone 2.

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.

[404DAO]

A summary of our onchain votes in the last 2 weeks:

Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program (Tally)

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.

Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0 (Tally)

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.

Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO (Tally)

We have voted FOR expanding Tally support. A more detailed reasoning from the Snapshot vote is posted above.

Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request (Tally)

We have voted FOR the continuation of the Questbook grant program. A more detailed reasoning from the Snapshot vote is posted above.

[404DAO]

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.

[404DAO]

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.

@404DAO

We believe that Event Horizon has sufficiently incorporated feedback and the most recent version of this proposal is ready to be put up on Snapshot to gather more opinions from delegates.

Voting is scheduled to start at 5pm EST (April 16th) and can be found here.

[404DAO]

Our reasoning for voting decisions over the last 2 weeks:

Subsidy Fund for Security Services (Snapshot)

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.

Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon (Snapshot)

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:

@404DAO

404 DAO will be voting FOR this delegation to Event Horizon, as we see this proposal as a great opportunity to explore the “3rd pillar of governance” as outlined by EH:

@EventHorizonDAO

3rd pillar of governance, namely citizens (the other two being organizational and individual delegations)

This year long experiment will help us better understand the level of interest in governance participation from everyday Arbitrum users. For example, will giving these small voters a greater voice meaningfully increase their involvement in Arbitrum DAO? While not outlined in this proposal, these are the types of questions we hope Event Horizon will work on answering during the one year trial.

Additionally, @krst brought up several interesting ideas in his comment back in March, and while we echo that EH does not necessary need to follow those examples, we do agree that this could be the first step for more interesting ideas to be built.

Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy (Snapshot)

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.

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occurring in May:

Incentive Programs

LTIPP Non-Council Recommended Applications

As both a LTIPP council member and delegate, our team took the following approach in assessing the non-recommended applications:

1. Applicants that we originally gave a “Recommended” decision. We have voted FOR all of these applicants. After reviewing each of their revisions, we found that the feedback from other council members helped further strengthen the applications. These applicants include: Bedrock, Sushi, Smilee, Synthetix, Clipper, Yearn, D2 Finance, and Connext

2. Applicants that we originally gave a “Not Recommended” decision. This included Rage Trade and DODO and we have voted FOR both of their applications on Snapshot. Rage Trade fully addressed our concerns and while DODO’s justification could still have been stronger, its revised amount request led us to support it.

3. Applicants that we did not review in the LTIPP process - CVI, Buffer, AcryptoS, Tradao, and Deri. Our team fully reviewed these applications based on the rubric & scoring system designed for LTIPP to ensure each applicant was given a fair assessment.

   • We voted For: Buffer, CVI, and Tradao
   • We voted Against: AcryptoS and Deri

STIP Bridge Challenges

• MUX - FOR: While a large request, they exhibited strong metric growth during STIP Round 1 and they were thorough in their reporting. As an Arbitrum-centric team we think it makes sense to continue supporting them.
• Stargate - FOR: Unfortunate that they were unable to really participate in STIP Round 1 so we don’t have data to directly compare against. However, we see this as an opportunity to support Stargate at a fraction of their original ask.
• Solv - FOR: They displayed strong growth in STIP Round 1 with a reasonable grant size. Excited to see how another round of incentives impacts growth.
• Sanko - FOR: This is a project that is now starting to gain a lot of momentum and featuring a complimentary product suite with streaming and gaming.
• Tide - AGAINST: Not bought into the incentive mechanism and request is more than the rules allow.
• KyberSwap - FOR: We believe they have sufficiently regrouped since the exploit and were able to recover and return funds. They are team and project with supporting and put further a reasonable request. We are interested in seeing what they can accomplish this round since they didn’t participate in STIP Round 1.
• Gains - FOR: A high request, but Gains has been a power player for generating activity on Arbitrum. We believe the concerns over their bridge were addressed by the relevant parties.
• Boost - FOR: We believe they have adequately addressed sybil concerns through the use of the Farcaster.
• Thales - FOR: Strong conversion of OP users over to ARB. Fair ask and supports a developing sector on Arbitrum
• Savvy - FOR: Would like to see more growth from a grant of this size, but they have shown strong retention from STIP Round 1
• Stake DAO - AGAINST: An unfortunate situation regarding the KYC process (this is seems to be a reoccurring problem that the DAO needs to figure out) and mixed advice from delegates. However, we can’t renew based on the growth data presented from the few weeks they did run incentives.
• Furucombo - AGAINST: Too large of ask based on results from STIP Round 1
• Socket - AGAINST: Lackluster addendum for such a large follow up request. Since reporting was also not great during STIP Round 1, an additional 500k request has not been properly justified.
• Angle - AGAINST: While they should impressive TVL growth for EURA, there was a large drop-off after incentives ended. Growth in holders was incredibly minimal and not much EURA holders/TVL was successfully migrated from other chains. Combined with switching to the more competitive USD stablecoin market, we’re not confident Arbitrum will receive a high return on the 350k request based on the previous campaign.
• OpenOcean - FOR: We like the focus on strategic partnerships and overall this is a reasonable grant size request. Their metrics were strong during STIP Round 1 despite a drop off post-incentives.
• Thetanuts - FOR: STIP ignited TVL growth with a reasonable amount of ARB, and retention was relatively strong
• Dolomite - FOR: Seem strong growth and the effects from oARB mechanism has been beneficial
• Umami - FOR: Strong retention, interesting to see how switch in mechanisms will effect their performance

Snapshot Votes

GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels)

We voted FOR funding GovHack at ETH CC. GovHack at ETHDenver was well-executed and presented delegates and DAO contributors with a great opportunity to build relationships and work on proposals. We are confident in the team’s ability to execute on this initiative for ETHCC in Brussels and felt they presented a justified/appropriate budget.

Grant Request - Curve Finance

We voted FOR Curve’s grant request. We’re supportive of this grant’s objectives, specifically contributing to increase native ARB and LRT liquidity.

Proposal for Approval of DeDaub as the ADPC Security Advisor

We voted FOR approval of DeDeub as the ADPC Security Advisor. We believe the cost outlined is fair for a security SME and DeDaub is a reputable candidate for the position.

Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO

We voted FOR funding the M&A Pilot Program. However, we encourage the various M&A/venture initiatives share learnings between each other to reduce potential research overlap. We look forward to seeing the results of this initial program as DAO M&A is very under explored area.

Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)

We voted FOR as the MSS addresses multiple pain points around unnecessary overhead spend and reducing fragmentation. While there are concerns around centralization of a few signers, we are confident the vetting process will lead to a selection of reputable and responsible signers.

Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties

Voted ABSTAIN as a member of the LTIPP Council

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives

We voted FOR as this was very thorough application and we appreciate the use of the LTIPP template for formality sake. Our only request before this goes to Tally is for the fee rebate to be lowered to 75% from 80% to align with the standard set by other perp DEXs on Arbitrum.

Tally Votes

Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)

After voting Abstain in the Snapshot vote, we voted FOR Funding STIP Bridge on Tally. While we believe there should have been more reflection on the successes and failures of STIP, the current competitive landscape across L1/L2s has led us to support this proposal. As STIP.bridge and LTIPP are now on track to end around the same time, we would encourage the DAO to take time to reflect on more sustainable and robust incentive strategies once these programs have ended.

GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels)

Stance unchanged from the Snapshot vote, please see above reasoning.

Grant Request - Curve Finance

Stance unchanged from the Snapshot vote, please see above reasoning.

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occuring in June:

Snapshot Votes

1. Subcommittee for Security Services Cohort

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Against
   • Reasoning: We voted AGAINST the Subcommittee for Security Services Cohort. We believe there is no need for another committee at this time, as the ADPC should be equipped to handle the overseeing the administration and selection process for security services subsidies. However, we remain open to re-evaluating our position if the ADPC provides more clear reasoning around why this subcommittee is necessary.

2. AIP: Nova Fee Router ARBos

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR on the Nova Fee Router AIP to permissionlessly send funds from Nova to the Arbitrum DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One. We support technical changes that improve the operational efficiency of the DAO and simplify financial operations.

3. Activate Stylus and NextGen Web Assembly Smart Contracts

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR as Stylus is an exciting technical improvement that will most notably increase accessibility and reduce costs for developers building on Arbitrum. We support pioneering proposals like this one, that strengthen Arbitrum’s market leadership.

4. Account Abstraction Support RIP-7212

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR support enhancing Account Abstraction (AA) through RIP-7212, the introduction of new Smart Wallets. We support technical improvements that improve security for users and are obviously aligned with the values specified in Arbitrum DAO’s Constitution.

5. Election of STEP Program Manager

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted for Avantgarde due to their crypto native expertise in treasury management. We have enjoyed working with them in Uniswap DAO and would like to support them in establishing a footprint in Arbitrum.

6. AVI

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Against
   • Reasoning: We voted AGAINST because this proposal lacks a clear problem statement and actionable solution. It also overlaps with existing initiatives in the DAO such as the Gaming Catalyst Proposal (GCP) and M&A Pilot. Although we do see the value in a Venture Initiative for Arbitrum, we do not support providers who ask the DAO for funding to work on thesis development and would prefer providers come to the DAO with an initial thesis.

7. AIP BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum

   • Proposal 1: Link

   • Vote: For

   • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal as it aligns with Arbitrum’s goals of decentralization (via permissionless validation) and security (via mitigating the risk of delay attacks).

     Additionally, as we commented in the forum here, we think it’s important for the DAO to have mechanisms in place to ensure that it makes an educated decision in how to spend confiscated funds from a malicious actor.

8. Proposals 2 &3: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment & Operational cost sentiment

   • Proposal 2: Link
   • Proposal 3: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR these proposal as we support introducing an economic incentive mechanism to grow the validator set. Arbitrum Foundation is a great fit to be the first active proposer on BoLD. With that said, although we understand that only one honest party is required in BoLD to protect the integrity and liveness of the system, we would like to explore future incentive mechanisms for additional parties to also become proposers.

9. Pilot Stage - Treasury Backed Vaults R&D

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Against
   • Reasoning: We voted Against Treasury Backed Vaults R&D Proposal. Although we think it is an interesting idea, we would like to first see a revised proposal that includes the community’s feedback, the risks that TBV’s create for the DAO, and a lower cost.

10. Infinite Launchpad

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: Against
    • Reasoning: We have voted AGAINST the Infinite Launchpad Proposal. While we support enhancing the venture ecosystem in Arbitrum, this proposal lacks clear deliverables and the cost is excessive. Furthermore, the DAO doesn’t have an operational structure in place yet to capture upside from the VC investments that will be made.

11. ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: Against
    • Reasoning We have voted AGAINST this proposal. Although we believe it’s important to create a repository of information to track activity across the DAO, the budget for this initiative is egregiously high, especially considering that the content presented is high-level.

12. Multisig Support Service (MSS) Elections

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: Abstain
    • Reasoning: We voted to ABSTAIN by voting equally for all candidates. This is to avoid a conflict of interest while running for the MSS position.

Tally Votes

1. Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot and our reasoning remains unchanged. You can find our detailed voting rationale here.

2. Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot and our reasoning remains unchanged. You can find our detailed voting rationale here.

3. GCP

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot and our reasoning remains unchanged. You can find our detailed voting rationale here.

4. Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot to increase the threshold of the non-emergency security council to 9/12. We continue to support this decision so that Arbitrum can maintain its “Stage 1” designation in the L2Beat Stages framework.

5. ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot and our reasoning remains unchanged. You can find our detailed voting rationale here.

6. Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot and our reasoning remains unchanged. You can find our detailed voting rationale here.

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occurring July 1st-19th

Snapshot Votes

1. Approval of STEP Committee

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We are voting FOR the recommendations made by the STEP Committee. We are confident in their recommendations and are excited for this first step towards Treasury Diversification.

2. Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR improving predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s operations. We believe that creating a predictable structure with batched votes and a holiday break will help to curb delegate fatigue. We look forward to learning more about the workflow of batched votes, and have posted a question about this in the forum.

3. Jumpstart fund for problem definition and DAO improvement

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Against
• Reasoning: We voted AGAINST funding the Jumpstart Fund for problem definition and DAO improvement. Echoing other delegates, we do not support funding projects that propose “planning to plan”. We also do not believe that the DAO needs to do sensemaking exercises to identify problems. We encourage @danielo (and anyone else) to write out the problems that the DAO currently faces (anyone who has spent any amount of time in the DAO will have this context) and propose solutions with clear roles and structures for the DAO to then vote on.

Tally Votes

1. Subsidy Fund Proposal from the ADPC

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR a Subsidy Fund for Security Services on Snapshot. We are pleased to see that the ADPC will facilitate the selection of projects that will benefit from the whitelisted security audit service providers, rather than setting up a separate sub-committee as previously proposed. You can find our detailed voting rationale here.

2. Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Against
• Reasoning We voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot and our reasoning remains unchanged. You can find our detailed voting rationale here

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occurring July 20th-31st

Snapshot Votes

1. GCP Council Voting
   • Proposal: link
   • Vote: David Bolger, CoinflipCanada, Greg Canessa, Karthik Raju and Enric Pedro
   • Reasoning: We voted for these individuals because they complement one another well and will create synergy as a whole. Each individual who we voted for has both strong subject matter expertise and/or gaming industry experience.
2. Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO
   • Proposal: link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal. In Entropy’s short existence as an organization, it has already made meaningful contributions to the DAO by finding cost savings opportunities and passing proposals that mitigate operational inefficiencies. We are sensitive however to the budget as it is a sizable amount that includes startup costs which typically a company would not ask a client to cover. Furthermore, the budget does not include leftover funds from the large grant that Entropy received from the Foundation. We are eager to see Entropy’s quarterly transparency reports so we can keep a pulse on their spend.
3. Furucombo’s Misuse of Funds
   • Proposal: link
   • Vote: For - Ban Furucombo
   • Reasoning: We voted to Ban Furucombo. Misusing funds and breaking program rules should not be tolerated in the DAO. Although the funds were returned, it is best to set a strong precedent against this kind of behavior.
4. Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain
   • Proposal: link
   • Vote: Against (Only Ethereum L1)
   • Reasoning: We voted AGAINST allowing deployments of new Orbit chains to any blockchain. Our team heavily weighed the pros and cons of voting for versus against expansion. We took into account the potential upside in revenue from this expansion and how it would be a hedge against our current Ethereum-only commitment, however we believe that the Arbitrum DAO’s Constitution provides strong reasoning for why delegates should vote against this proposal.
     The FIRST community value presented in Section 6 of the Arbitrum Constitution is “Ethereum-Aligned” and states the following: “Arbitrum is part of the Ethereum ecosystem, and the Arbitrum community is part of the Ethereum community. Although the ArbitrumDAO makes its own decisions and pursues its own goals, it is deeply aligned with Ethereum and sees itself as an active and constructive participant in the Ethereum community.” While there can be different interpretations of this document, in our view this proposal strays ArbitrumDAO away from its core values and will likely create unwanted risk and longterm consequences.

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occurring Aug 1-16th

Snapshot

1. Incentives Detox

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR the Incentives Detox. The 3-month detox will provide a period of reflection and ample time to iron out the details of the future incentives program. We look forward to collaborating on the next iteration of the incentive programs.

2. ARB Staking

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR this initiative. We support innovative ways to enhance the utility of the ARB token and recognize the importance of staking for network security. Our conviction was strengthened after reviewing the memos from ARDC’s Research and Security Members, Delphi Digital, and Open Zeppelin. However, we share concerns about the risks involved in integrating a Tally Protocol LST, a brand new product offering. We advocate for a phased approach to staking, allowing the DAO to sensibly measure impact, and echo Delphi’s recommendation for a “clear-cut economic roadmap.”

3. Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains. We support data provider diversity and believe Growthepie is a reputable data provider. However, we share concerns regarding product distribution and engagement, low TVL on Orbit Chains, and whether this service should be funded by the DAO or by The Foundation or OCL. We encourage further discussion on these issues before this proposal moves to an on-chain vote.

4. Gov Analytics Dashboard

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Against
• Reasoning: We voted AGAINST the Governance Analytics Dashboard proposal. While we support funding more data analysis around key governance metrics, this proposal falls short due to two main issues:
  1. The proposal seeks to recreate a similar dashboard that was done for Optimism, with the budget including funds for design mockups that are nearly identical to those for Optimism.
  2. Much of the data presented either overlaps with Karma’s metrics or lacks actionable insights. We would like to see deeper analytics around the proposed governance metrics.

Tally

1. ArbOS Bianca

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR ArbOS Bianca and previously supported all three prior temperature checks.

2. MSS Vote

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Abstain
• Reasoning: We voted to ABSTAIN in the MSS vote due to serving on the multisig.

3. Funding Entropy Advisors

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR the on-chain vote of funding Entropy Advisors, and our previously stated rationale has not changed.

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occurring Aug 17th-31st

Snapshot

1. Should the DAO Default to Shielded Voting?

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Elections Only
   • Reasoning: We voted for shielded voting specifically “For Elections Only.” This is a sensitive matter and given that there is evidence that shielded voting reduces voter turnout, our view is that shielded votes should only be implemented for elections. In our experience, we have seen how politicscan lead some voters to change their vote at the 11th hour based on how others voted.

2. Proposal to Temporarily Extend Delegate Incentive System

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR the Delegate Incentive Extension. This extension will allow ample time for feedback and iteration of DIPv1.1 while continuing to drive delegate contributions. We have been impressed with the job SeedGov has done in implementing this system and are satisfied with the results of DIPv1. The Karma scoring system has proved to be effective in tracking important delegate data-points. We are looking forward to seeing the final version of DIPv1.1.

3. Arbitrum DAO Offsite

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR the Arbitrum DAO Off-site temperature check. Getting key stakeholders in the same room has proven to be beneficial for the DAO, as evidenced by the two GovHack initiatives. Our recommendation would be to ensure that the offsite is accessible to all delegates who are interested in participating.

4. daoURI for the ArbitrumDAO

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Against
   • Reasoning: We voted Against this proposal due to procedural reasons. We support the content of the proposal however we would like to see the proposing team follow the standard 7 day time-frame for comments and feedback in the forum, and then repost to snapshot.

5. Strategic Treasury Management on Arbitrum

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted For Strategic Treasury Management on Arbitrum. This proposal is a necessary step towards DAO sustainability, and we appreciate the proposed solution being implemented entirely onchain with Aera Protocol. The proposers: Karpatkey and Gauntlet, are strong organizations with a wide depth of experience in treasury and risk management. We trust in their ability to implement a successful treasury management solution for Arbitrum.

6. Should the DAO Create COI and Self Voting Policies?

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: FOR: Disclosure Policy & FOR: Responsible Voting Policy
   • Reasoning: We voted For Disclosure Policy AND Responsible Voting Policy. We believe that requiring voters to disclose any potential conflicts of interest as well as voting for others, in addition to themselves, in an election, is a fair middle-ground. We would also like to echo L2Beat’s comment that the DAO needs an entity to enforce these self-declarative conflict of interest disclosures. The Foundation seems like a natural fit for the role.

7. Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Panda, Abstain, Unicorn, Against
   • Reasoning: We voted for funding the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship, and chose Panda Partners tier as our first option. Supporting the Ethereum ecosystem, specifically security, should be a top priority and it aligns with the Arbitrum Constitution. When weighing the options for sponsorship, we felt that the jump from Panda to Unicorn was not worth the added cost — Arbitrum would receive the best ROI with the Panda Partner tier. In the future, it would be advantageous for someone from the DAO to interface with hackathon/event proposers to negotiate pricing and perks. The ADPC or Entropy comes to mind as qualified representatives to manage these kinds of interactions.

Tally

1. Funds to bootstap the first BoLD validator

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted FOR Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator. Our previously stated reasoning has not changed.

2. ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: For
   • Reasoning: We voted For ARB Staking. Our previously stated reasoning has not changed.

3. [Canceled] Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool

   • Proposal: Link
   • Vote: Against
   • Reasoning: We voted Against this proposal as the numbers were incorrectly stated.

[404DAO]

September Voting and Rationale

Snapshot

1. Extend Delay on L2Time Lock

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR extending the L2 TimeLock Delay as we support technical changes that enhance protocol security. Although this change adds 5 days to the governance process, it only affects Constitutional Proposals—not proposals spending ARB from the DAO Treasury, which comprise most of the DAO’s proposals.

2. STIP-Bridge Operational Budget

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR ratifying the STIP.B Operational Budget. This group’s work proved both effective and beneficial to the program. We commend their efforts in ensuring the program’s successful execution.

3. Replace Oversight Committee with MSS - Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool - Event Horizon

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal as we support DAO-funded programs using the MSS to reduce operational costs and increase proposal efficiency. Since the Event Horizon Proposal is experimental, using the MSS to custody the $7M ARB funds—rather than an oversight committee—gives the DAO more control. This includes the ability to clawback funds, returning them to the DAO treasury, and to push the community pool into an ‘abstain’ position.

4. ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee Phase II

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Yes - Extend
• Reasoning: We voted FOR to extend the ADPC for another 6 month term. We would like to first acknowledge this group’s pioneering efforts — as a DAO Procurement Committee is the first of its kind. We would like to also thank the committee for its laborious work. After reviewing the Outcome Report and attending the most recent ADPC call, it has become more apparent how time and energy intensive it was for the committee to navigate and set-up the required legal infrastructure backbone.
  With that said, we would like to echo others concerns about the election procedure. Although we agree that it makes sense for continuity for the committee members to be automatically re-elected, the Tally vote that set up the ADPC does say that members are elected for a term of 6 months. Therefore, at the end of Phase II, we would like to see an election take place.
  We look forward to the Phase II deliverables to procure Events Providers and RPC Providers, and would like to see updates made to the DAO throughout the process.

5. Pyth Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Abstain
• Reasoning: We voted ABSTAIN as a LTIPP Council Member.

6. Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal. We’re pleased to see RARI demonstrating its commitment to Arbitrum by migrating to Arbitrum One. As there’s no cost to the DAO, we’re happy to support their governance token upgrade.

7. Synthetix LTIPP Grant Extension Request

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Abstain
• Reasoning: We voted ABSTAIN as a LTIPP Council Member.

8. Fund the Stylus Sprint

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR funding the Stylus Sprint. We have supported Stylus since its inception because it’s an exciting technical improvement that aims to increase accessibility and reduce costs for developers building on Arbitrum. This proposed Sprint program to incentivize developers to build on Stylus is pragmatic and sensible. We like the thoughtfulness of the program’s design, including an application process and a committee of Stylus experts to evaluate projects. The cost of 5.18M ARB, broken down by up to 5M ARB to projects building on Stylus and 75k ARB for committee compensation, is also reasonable.

9. Aave LTIPP Grant Extension Request

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Abstain
• Reasoning: We voted ABSTAIN as a LTIPP Council Member.

10. Constitutional AIP: Proposal to adopt Timeboost, a new transaction ordering policy

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For, Collect bids in ETH to the Treasury
• Reasoning: We voted FOR adopting Timeboost as a new transaction ordering policy specifically with bids collected in ETH and sending them to the DAO treasury. After reviewing a variety of discussions on Timeboost and specifically digging into backtested revenue projections by Blockworks Research, we believe it is prudent to move forward with Timeboost as we believe it could be the catalyst for ArbitrumDAO to drive more sustainable revenue.

11. Terms of Tenure for STEP program manager

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Additional Funds for 1 Year
• Reasoning: We voted to fund the STEP Program Manager with funds to cover 1 year of service costs. Ensuring service providers are confident in compensation structure when working with the DAO should be a top priority for the DAO and will drive long-term value.

12. ArbitrumDAO Off-Site

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: (1) Online event
• Reasoning: We voted for Online Event first in the ranked choice. Since there are several concurrent event initiatives: GovHack and an Events RFP — we support an online off-site. Especially since the agenda and priorities of the offsite are not yet defined.

13. GovHack Devcon in Bangkok

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Abstain
• Reasoning: We decided to vote ABSTAIN because our team will not be attending DevCon.

14. Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We strongly support funding the Foundation with a revamped budget for Strategic Partnerships. The Foundation has done excellent work driving key partnerships across multiple sectors, particularly in traditional finance, positioning Arbitrum as a gateway for TradFi to enter crypto. We look forward to the continued development of these partnerships and the expansion of Orbit chains.

15. Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted FOR DIP V1.5. We have confidence in SeedGov and are happy with how they managed DIP. We believe that their past experience makes them uniquely equipped to manage DIP v1.5. After extensive conversations with the SeedGov team and careful consideration, we believe that v1.5 will drive higher quality contributions than the proposed alternative v1.1. We proposed changes to the rubric to minimize subjectivity in scoring, and were pleased that the SeedGov team embraced our changes. You can find those changes in our forum comment here. We look forward to participating in the program and driving meaningful contributions in the DAO.

Tally

1. Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We voted For this proposal during Snapshot and are pleased to see this proposal work through the necessary technical checkpoints in order to reach implementation.

2. Ethereum Protocol Attackathon

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We supported this vote during the temperature check for the Panda Partners and our previously stated reasoning has not changed.

3. ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We supported this vote during the temperature check and our previously stated rationale has not changed and is stated above.

4. Extend Delay on L2TimeLock

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: For
• Reasoning: We supported this vote during the temperature check and our previously stated rationale has not changed and is stated above.

[404DAO]

Rationale for Votes Occurring in October

Snapshot

1. Whitelist Infura Nova Validator

• Proposal: Link
• Link: Whitelist Infura Validator
• Rationale: We voted FOR whitelisting the Infura Validator. Based on their current reliability as an infra provider and support on the data availability committee, we support whitelisting the Nova validator.

2. Research on Context and Retention

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR
• Rationale: We voted FOR Research on Context and Retention. Given the intended scope along with no extra cost to the DAO, we believe this initiative is worth pursuing.

3. An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR - Use ENS txt records
• Rationale: We voted FOR publishing a daoURI onchain using the ENS txt records. We support creating a single source of truth for the DAO. This will also make it easier for users to locate dao resources and official information while preserving decentralization of the information. Additionally, this proposal has no overhead or additional cost to the DAO, it was an easy decision for us to support it.

4. LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Serious People
• Rationale: We voted to fund Serious People’s Retroactive Community Funding. Based on our review of their contributions, we felt their team was worthy of receiving their proposed allocation. Specifically their work on the Application Template was of value along with their initial work to propose KPIs around the grant programs. Additionally, we felt the budget was reasonable for the outlined time commitment.

5. Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR
• Rationale: We voted FOR establishing a DAO events budget for 2025. While the Foundation has led most events strategy to this point, we believe the DAO should be proactive about developing an events strategy. We believe the proposed budget for 2025 is a reasonable amount.

6. (V2) Arbitrum Research and Development Collective

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Funded with 2.09M USDC + Council
• Rationale: We voted FOR funding the V2 ARDC with an amount of 2.09M USDC. First, we would like to acknowledge the work conducted by the ARDC through the first term. The amount and depth of research conducted provided high value to delegates on niche topic points aiding discussion and analysis on many critical topics for the DAO. Even though there were some issues, as expected, for the first iteration of the program, we are confident in the value that this program provides to the DAO and delegates.
  As for budget, we believe that paying market price will attract a higher-quality applicant pool leading to an increased likelihood of an optimal result for the DAO.

7. Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: AGAINST
• Rationale: We voted AGAINST the Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program. We are failing to see the added benefit from this program especially given many top projects have already received a large airdrop during the token generation event. The proposed implementation also contributes to a misalignment between the DAO and newer projects.

8. GCP Council Reconfirmation Vote for Tim Chang

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Reconfirm Tim Chang
• Rationale: We voted to reconfirm Tim Chang to the GCP Council. Based on Tim’s past experience, we believe he will be a valuable addition to the Council and we look forward to the work he does on behalf of the DAO.

9. GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for John Kennedy

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: Reconfirm John Kennedy
• Rationale: We voted to reconfirm John Kennedy to the GCP Council. John has shown a strong commitment to the Arbitrum DAO through his contributions with Hack Humanity. Additionally, his background shows he is well-qualified to serve on the Council. We look forward to the work John does on behalf of the DAO.

Tally

1. Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR
• Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed.

2. Arbitrum Strategic Off-site (Online) Updated Proposal

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: AGAINST
• Rationale: After voting FOR an online offsite during the temperature check phase, we have decided to vote AGAINST during the onchain voting period. This is due to the lack of broad support for the idea. We believe this program will not achieve optimal results without wide buy-in from the DAO.

3. Enhancing Multichain Governance: RARI Token Upgrade

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR
• Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed.

4. Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR
• Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed.

5. Fund the Stylus Sprint

• Proposal: Link
• Vote: FOR
• Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed.