# AIP-1: Arbitrum Improvement Proposal Framework

**URL:** https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-1-arbitrum-improvement-proposal-framework/30
**Category:** Archived Proposals
**Tags:** failed, snapshot
**Created:** [March 15, 2023, 2:56pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-1-arbitrum-improvement-proposal-framework/30 "2023-03-15T14:56:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 175

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Curia](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/curia/32/7751_2.png) [@Curia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Curia)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2023, 3:29pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-1-arbitrum-improvement-proposal-framework/30/175 "2023-04-03T15:29:56Z")

</div>

Hello everyone, we are [Curia](https://twitter.com/Curia_gov), an Arbitrum delegate platform. It’s inspiring to see this proposal initiating the formal establishment of the Arbitrum DAO. We appreciate and support various aspects of the proposal, including the creation and funding of the Arbitrum Foundation, which resonates with our perspective on progressive decentralization. Nonetheless, we find it essential to express our agreement with the concerns raised in this thread.

At present, **we will be voting Agasint the proposal** due to transparency concerns and other issues raised by delegates in these forums. AIP-1 falls short in terms of clarity in several areas, including the pre-allocation of funds without community approval or input and the 750 million $ARB token transfer to the Foundation during the initial token distribution. This transfer has reportedly already occurred, making AIP-1 seem like a retroactive ratification of decisions made without the DAO’s involvement.

Taking into account the delegates’ concerns raised in these forums, we present a summary of concerns and recommendations for advancing with Arbitrum AIP-1:

Key Concerns:

1. AIP-1 is encompasses too many topics. Numerous potentially non-contentious and contentious items are bundled together under a single vote, which could set an unfavorable precedent.

2. Lack of communitcation regarding the pre-allocation of funds without community notice, approval or input.

3. Insufficient transparency and detail regarding the 750M ARB budget allocated for administrative purposes.

4. Ambiguity surrounding the Special Grants program, with unclear processes and criteria for awarding funds, which lacks DAO involvement and requires proper guidelines and context on how the fund will be used to benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem.

5. Lack of clarity around the Arbitrum Foundation’s directors and Data Availability Committee’s selection criteria and processes for member removal or appointment.

Recommendations for Arbitrum AIP-1 Moving Forward:

1. **Improve the communication process** regarding the governance updates and actions taken by the Arbitrum team.

- One issue we’ve noticed is the lack of proper announcements for proposals, both on the forum and Arbitrum’s Twitter. We suggest having an official process on the announcing updates of each proposal on the forum and creating a separate Twitter account focused solely on ArbitrumDAO’s governance-related matters, similar to **[SafeDAO](https://twitter.com/safegovernance).**

1. **Divide AIP-1 into separate proposals** that can be voted on individually. This could include separate votes ratifying on:

By addressing these recommendations, Arbitrum can create a more inclusive and transparent governance process going foward. This will help build trust within the community and ensure that future proposals are met with a more constructive and collaborative approach.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-1-arbitrum-improvement-proposal-framework/30)._