At SEED, we believe this proposal is well-intentioned and holds potential benefits for the ecosystem. We think it is a good proposal, as it can help streamline various processes within the Arbitrum network. At the common user level, the proposed increase in gas fees is not particularly significant and should not pose a substantial burden.
However, the timing of this proposal appears suboptimal, since these last couple of months we spent a significant part of our treasury (eg. Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem), so these actions feel like covering a stab wound with a band-aid. It is essential to synchronize it with the Strategic Treasury Management proposal to ensure cohesive financial planning and execution. We consider it might be a good idea to align this proposal with the Arbitrum DAO Budget proposal that you guys also created.
We are also interested in understanding how this gas fee increase might impact builders who are currently deploying or those planning to deploy on Arbitrum. Assessing the potential impact on developers is essential to gauge the proposal’s broader implications.
In the event that both this proposal and the ARB Staking: Use Surplus Fees to Align Governance proposal are approved, 50% of the hypothetical fees will go to the ARB Staking initiative. Has this potential allocation been considered?
Overall, while we support the core idea of the proposal, we believe these considerations and alignments are crucial for its successful implementation. Thank you, @entropy, for putting this proposal together and for considering our feedback.