The proposal itself is troubling for several reasons:
- AIP-1 was a ‘ratification’ of actions already carried out by the Arbitrum Foundation - clearly against the decentralised ethos they are attempting to create
- Almost no transparency was given to the allocation of 750m ARB to the Arbitrum Foundation
- An extremely expansive proposal with no clear focus on a particular subject matter
AIP-1 Overall Failure
In our opinion, this is an incredibly bad precedent to set where the first vote is a ‘ratification’ of past actions and something the DAO would disagree with. We are sympathetic in that a huge cost is associated with setting up and operating such a large organisation, not only efficiently but successfully.
Arbitrum had every opportunity to outline these funds for allocation to the Foundation in their token distribution schedule when the ARB token and Arbitrum DAO were announced. We believe that as this road was not chosen, the Foundation must remain on it and stay true to its outlined governance process.
Unfortunately, from the outside, AIP-1 looks like an attempt to squeeze a large amount of funding for any number of things into an all-encompassing proposal hoping to fly under the radar (we understand this is likely not the case but optics are everything in this space).
Frankly, AIP-1 was a proposal to bypass the governance process, which was already bypassed due to the actions that have already taken place. Instead of attempting to be as decentralised as possible with the ratification of actions, they have undermined the entire DAO and its governance power.
The ARB token’s main purpose is governance and this simple yet critical purpose has been walked all over. In light of this, we will be abstaining from voting on AIP-1.
Transparency
AIP-1 gives almost no transparency as to the allocation of funds, how they will be spent, or when.
The following is required to move forward regarding the Special Grants Program:
- What framework is to be used to select grants to ecosystem participants and how will these benefit the Arbitrum DAO?
- What types of grants will be targeted (sectors) and why?
- How will such grants be reported to the community?
- How will a return on investment (ROI) be calculated for these grants to determine program efficacy?
In addition to the Special Grants Program, ARB has been moved from supposedly locked wallets (with vesting) without any prior communication. We call for a full report on the details of all wallets and their locked/vesting status. Transparency on circulating/liquid tokens, vesting and selling schedules are paramount.
Multi-faceted Proposal
As echoed by many others here and specifically in our original ARB Delegate Application, AIPs must be targeted at a single goal. AIP-1 misses this by a long way and can be split into several more focused proposals.
Summary
As a result of the above comments, Castle Capital has Abstained from voting on AIP-1. We look forward to the above comments being implemented for the revision.