I don’t think the issue here is whether the Foundation should have a budget for BD (or the possibility of lending to MM).
These points are necessary for the arbitrum to be successful.
For example, if the document had clearly stated that the foundation would get 750m airdrops (even better if there was an implication in the vesting), I don’t think there would have been much discussion here.
People would have just been arguing about what is the best and most efficient way for the Foundation to use them. There is nothing more to it than that.
The problem is simply that
i) the documentation didn’t mention it
ii) The volume in circulation and the resulting market capitalization, which everyone used and made investment decisions on, was simply false. The volume of tokens in circulation was more than 1.25 billion, not 1.25 billion. What should be used now? Do we add another 50 million tokens to reflect the 10 million tokens sold and the 40 million tokens used by MM (which would make sense)? Or is it an additional 750 million tokens if, from the use of the word “ratify”, it could be in circulation as early as today without a vote?
iii) What was the rush to sell 10 million tokens, which could cover the costs of running such a foundation for quite some time, without transparency?
iv) By saying that AIP-1 is a mere “ratification”, the governance power of the ARB token is undermined and hence the value of the token. What governance power does the token have if the proposal is implemented as is despite token shareholders voting against it?
What is done is done and cannot be undone. However, it is clear that the ARB token shareholders do not agree with the AIP-1 proposal.
I am just a retarded anon with a completely irrelevant amount of tokens. However, assuming my IQ to be 60, it seems to me that the best approach would be as follows
i) Never say again that voting is not important.
ii) Hold the bulk of the remaining 700 million tokens in contracts with linear vesting (I wouldn’t need to spend $1 billion in ARB tokens on day one). The contracts are not immutable and can be amended by subsequent governance votes.
iii) Increase the number of foundation directors to five. This is to improve decentralization and to provide token holders with reassurance that their grant money will be used for the success of the ecosystem rather than for back taxes (as happened with some Alt-L1s).
iv) Provide transparency and details about the first year of the budget (or at least the set-up costs and expenses for the next few months) so that people better understand why we rushed to sell 10 million tokens.
v) Propose a grant application process and general criteria (does not need to be extremely detailed, just a framework).
This would pass the AIP-2 easily and goodwill would be sufficient.