404 DAO Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
, ,
19

Rationale for Votes Occurring in December

Snapshot

  1. User Research: Why build on Arbitrum?

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Against
    3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal, as we believe the ARDC is better equipped to conduct the research and ensure the findings are actionable for the DAO.

  2. User Research: Designing and operating the reporting and information function

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Abstain
    3. Rationale: We voted ABSTAIN on this proposal, as we understand the authors are revising it and plan to repost. We will await the updated version before voting and providing our rationale.

  3. User Research: Arbitrum D.A.O Domain Allocator Offerings Grant Program Season 3

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Renew with 5 domains
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR the renewal and expansion of the Questbook Domain Allocator Offering, given the proven success of the first two seasons. As one of the longest-running grant programs, it has demonstrated its value by efficiently allocating smaller grants and alleviating delegate fatigue. We are particularly pleased with the planned expansion to target Orbit ecosystems through a pilot funding approach. However, as noted in our feedback, we recommend implementing stronger post-grant tracking to better measure success.

  4. User Research: Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Abstain
    3. Rationale: We voted ABSTAIN due to a conflict of interest, as one of our team members is on the core team leading this initiative.

  5. User Research: ARDC (V2) Supervisory Council Election

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: 33% Jameskbh, 33% Pedro, 33% Entropy Adv+ Tamara
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR James and Pedro for the Communications role and Entropy + Tamara for the Operations role. James and Pedro have consistently shown exceptional commitment to ArbitrumDAO governance through thoughtful analysis and active participation in critical discussions. Their track record of diligence and detailed feedback on proposals makes them strong choices for the communications role of the council.

  6. User Research: ARDC (V2) Research Election

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: 50% Llama Research & Castle Capital, 50% Blockworks Advisory
    3. Rationale: We split our vote evenly, allocating 50% to Llama Research and 50% to Blockworks. We believe both parties possess the necessary skills and expertise to excel in the Research role. Additionally, their strong context and prior experience with Arbitrum DAO complement their respective skillsets.

  7. User Research: ARDC (V2) Risk Election

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Nethermind
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR Nethermind in the ARDC risk election. Given their established name and track record in technical risk positions, they are well suited to serve the DAO in this role.

  8. User Research: ARDC (V2) Security Election

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: OpenZeppelin
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR OpenZeppelin in the ARDC security election. Their strong performance and prior experience with ARDC demonstrate their capability to continue delivering significant value.

  9. User Research: Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: For
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal as it takes a crucial step toward defining a clear scope for future objectives, aligning closely with our vision for the development of ArbitrumDAO.

  10. User Research: Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025

    1. **Proposal: **Link
    2. Vote: Against
    3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal due to the high costs associated with a Year 2 conference. While we acknowledge the success of Year 1 and encourage supporting developing ecosystems, the proposed budget could not be justified based on the identified KPIs. We believe funding under $50k would be more appropriate and recommend utilizing Questbook for this initiative.

  11. User Research: OpCo - A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: For
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal as the OpCo implementation has been a long-standing topic of discussion within the DAO, and we believe now is the right time to experiment with the proposed approach. While we are cautiously optimistic about the current design and strategy, we recognize that success will heavily depend on robust communication, effective senior hiring, and clear accountability measures. We look forward to receiving updates as the entity is established and funded.

Tally

  1. Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Against
    3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST the Hackathon Builder Continuation Program. While we recognize and appreciate the effort that went into making the hackathon a success, our experience running similar events has shown that projects emerging from hackathons are rarely viable in the long term.
      This proposal seems to straddle two objectives: extending hackathon rewards and establishing a longer-term entrepreneur-in-residence program. If the primary goal is to build a robust entrepreneur-in-residence initiative, we recommend prioritizing the recruitment of high-quality applicants through a targeted selection process rather than relying solely on hackathon participants as the talent pool.

  2. Treasury Management V1.2

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Against
    3. Rationale: While we appreciate the goals outlined in the Treasury Management Proposal, we voted AGAINST it for several key reasons.
      First, the proposal preallocates a significant portion of funds for growth and treasury initiatives without conducting a standard treasury management analysis to determine optimal allocations. Additionally, the incentive structures for both councils are identical, despite their differing objectives, which could lead to suboptimal outcomes. We believe incentives should be aligned with clear objectives and measurable results, rather than the completion of tasks as specified in the proposal.
      We also have reservations about the pre-selection of committee members. A DAO-led election process would have ensured greater transparency and accountability in this critical decision.
      Given that the proposal has passed and will be implemented, we will closely monitor its execution and outcomes to ensure alignment with the DAO’s long-term interests.