Hi all, welcome to the Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee’s update thread for Phase II.
We will be posting bi-weekly project updates to this thread along with any additional updates as required on an ad-hoc basis.
Hi all, welcome to the Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee’s update thread for Phase II.
We will be posting bi-weekly project updates to this thread along with any additional updates as required on an ad-hoc basis.
Commenced market analysis to understand benchmarks and KPIs for RPC providers.
Collating RPC provider contacts.
Finalizing creation of public market consultation for RPCs.
Began process of contacting Orbit chains and other target customer base to identify pain points.
Coordinated with Entropy Advisors on events vision.
Decision to define vision and next steps post the Events Budget vote passing Tally.
Connected with Arbitrum Foundation to identify how we can support them with DevRel-focused events.
Made a significant push on the Subsidy Fund applications - closing of Subsidy Fund applications on Mon 14 Oct at 23.59 and we made a push on Twitter, got the Arbitrum DAO account to RT, etc. Received 56 applications.
Completed Stage 1 (initial review) of subsidy fund applicants.
In progress of completing Stage 2 (in-depth review) of subsidy fund applicants.
All whitelisted security service providers completed signing of agreements with AF.
Answered questions from whitelisted auditors and the subsidy fund applicants re. the process.
Created detailed task plan for Phase II.
Created update template and timeline view.
Aligned with MSS on creation of Subsidy Fund multi-sig.
Coordinated with Aera & MSS for ADPC payment stream for Phase II.
Complete Stage 2 (in-depth review) of subsidy fund applicants.
Walk through of marketplace.
Request quotes from whitelisted security service providers.
@sid_areta FYI. The ADPC Public Dashboard link is broken.
As part of the Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee (ADPC) Phase II proposal, the ADPC elected to convert its operational budget from ARB to USDC using the Aera protocol, with Gauntlet serving as the vault Guardian. The proposal requested 954,608 ARB, representing a $414,000 budget with a 20% buffer to account for potential price fluctuations between proposal submission and execution.
Due to a minor oversight, the buffer was converted along with the intended amount, resulting in an excess of $75,090 worth of ARB converted to USDC. After a discussion with the Arbitrum Foundation, a decision was made not to convert the USDC back to ARB. To be clear, no money was lost at any stage of this process – rather, more ARB was converted to USDC than initially proposed.
As a result, the MSS will return the USDC equivalent ($75,090 USDC) of the excess budget to the DAO treasury.
Aera is actively working to improve processes to ensure smooth and accurate conversions in the future.
Great update!
When will the security updates get funded?
I know some people are excited to announce the successes! =)
Hi Alex, hopefully soon - we’ve just received the list of preferred auditors, so will aim to make the final subsidy allocation decisions as soon as possible.
Subsidy Allocation Announcement
We’re pleased to announce the completion of the Security Services Subsidy Fund allocation. The ADPC has distributed USDC 1,911,806 from the total fund of USDC 1,918,000 (99.7%) to support security audits for 22 promising Arbitrum projects.
Selection Process
The evaluation process began with 56 applications, which were assessed using the Means Test criteria. We shortlisted 25 projects, with 22 moving forward after 3 withdrew. Projects were then classified into four tiers based on their Means Test scores:
All shortlisted projects published their security requirements on the ADPC marketplace, where the 9 whitelisted security providers submitted 152 competitive offers. This transparent process enabled projects to evaluate and select the most suitable service provider. The ADPC maintained oversight to ensure marketplace compliance throughout the process.
Selected Projects
We’re proud to announce the following successful applicants (in alphabetical order):
Next Steps
Upon completion of necessary documentation, subsidy payments will be transferred directly to the selected auditing firms.
gm
After reviewing the list of protocols that received a subsidy fund once again, I would like to reiterate the point I previously raised in the public telegram channel regarding the rationale behind the selection of applicants for the subsidy fund.
Considering that when the subsidy fund was proposed, the following was mentioned, with a particular focus on “smaller projects”:
As I mentioned previously, I believe that obtaining details about the reasons for approval and the circumstances that led to the rejection of other applicants will be valuable for other projects looking to apply in future subsidy programs, as it helps them understand the evaluation criteria. Secondly, it ensures transparency and a fair process.
Additionally, I have noticed that among the selected projects, the following was included:
Arb Staking consists of contracts whose audit also received funding through the proposal for their development, which was approved in August of last year.
I reached out to the ADPC team, and they promptly informed me that they were aware of the situation and considered that, since the request was for an audit contest, there was no issue in granting the funding.
To be clear: I do not believe the program’s rules were broken.
However, I do think this situation highlights the point that a bit more transparency regarding the rationale behind decisions would be beneficial.
Additionally, I would interpret the outlined principles differently in this particular situation:
I believe that a large company, which the DAO is already funding for the development and audit of contracts, should not be eligible to receive subsidies from another DAO program for those same contracts. But that’s my opinion and interpretation of what the subsidy fund was for.
Once again, this is not a criticism of either the ADPC team or Tally. It is simply an opinion regarding the future implementation of subsidies, both in the rules and in the transparency of the decisions.
Hey @pedrob!
As discussed on Telegram (and as rightly stated in your post as well), we do not believe that this was a breach of the Subsidy Fund’s parameters nor the ARB Staking proposal (I’ll let Tally voice their stance on that however).
The ARB Staking Proposal had $60,000 earmarked for an audit. The subsidy that the ADPC authorised was in relation to an audit contest on Sherlock; It is current industry standard for projects to carry out a ‘traditional audit’ coupled w/an audit contest to get more eyes on the codebase. Additionally, as the ADPC, we’d like to emphasize that the subsidy issued to Tally was based on their scoring on the Means Test (the rationale wasn’t “It’s ARB Staking, let’s just subsidize it”). With regards to the rationale for the scoring itself, if Tally is amenable, we can post a summary of why they qualified for the subsidy.
Given that Tally submitted a good application, rendered itself eligible for a subsidy and also in consideration of the fact that a traditional audit coupled w/an audit contest is sensible from a security mitigation perspective, we do not think that this is against the rules of the Subsidy Fund.
Thanks for the comment!
The Arbitrum Foundation will be utilizing the full earmarked $400k to subsidise costs related to our plan for ETHDenver. We are evaluating different options including a booth at the main conference, an Arbitrum community IRL get together, and a potential DAO delegate meetup.