AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator

[NathanVDH]

I’ve voted for both proposals as they’re aligned with the DAOs goal of having the best tech around. Glad to see that the Foundation is also taking some technical initiatives in its own hands, I’d love to see community members involved in the process as well - or simply the ARDC!

[PrincetonBlockchain]

The Princeton Blockchain Club voted FOR funding the first BoLD validator’s assertion and challenge bonds, and operational costs.

After voting on introducing BoLD, bootstrapping the first BoLD validator (and having it run by a party aligned with the DAO) is the next logical step for the DAO to take.

The additional 900 ETH to compensate (non-Foundation) proposers and reimburse their L1 fees is talked about in the original BoLD proposal (which we voted in favor of), so we’re also supporting it here.

Hoping to see more organizations/pools run validators in the future! (though we’re still not entirely sure if the economics of that are significantly attractive)

[Mahendran]

@Arbitrum

The Foundation will be working closely with Offchain Labs initially to set up and maintain the validator. Additionally, the Foundation is in the process of building internal capacity to host the Validator without any assistance.

ARB is for the people

Proposal Overview: Members of the Arbitrum DAO, you have been entrusted with the governance of a great and powerful network. But in your ivory towers, you have forgotten the people. You have become a political machine, serving the few and neglecting the many. Today, we, the Boopers, rise to reclaim the rewards that are rightfully ours. Proposal: We propose that the Arbitrum DAO directs 690,420.69 ARB towards the quarterly purchase of BOOP, the people’s coin. This act will not only empower the…

[Arbitrum]

This is valid feedback - thank you! The 3-year duration was selected for the following reasons: a) to account for having enough runway in the medium term, until there is an on-chain reimbursement solution. If and when an on-chain system is deployed, remaining funds will be sent back to the DAO or deposited into the on-chain solution; b) to avoid the friction of having to go through the entire governance process again, to request more funds to run the network in the near future.

[Arbitrum]

As mentioned in other comments, there are many reasons why ETH is proposed to be the bonding token for BoLD’s initial rollout on Arbitrum One. Both Question 6 and Question 7 in the BoLD FAQ dive into this topic further - be sure to check that out!

[Arbitrum]

Yes - anyone can propose a change to the current model via an AIP. It should be noted that the Arbitrum Foundation is volunteering to be the first active proposer for Arbitrum One and will forfeit all of the service fees. Additionally, in the current design, each assertion can only be posted by one proposer so there is an upper limit on service fees paid to active proposers. This also means that if the Arbitrum Foundation is the active proposer and no other proposers are actively participating, then the service fee won’t get paid out and will be returned to the ArbitrumDAO at the end of the 3 years (as mentioned in the AIP). The topic of multiple, active proposers is one of active research and development. Offchain Labs team will share updates on this capability when they have details to share.

[AranaDigital]

I appreciate the responses. Your comments regarding the on-chain solution in response to @ITUblockchain really helped to clarify the thought behind the 3-year proposal. We fully align with ETH being the asset for bonding, but in a similar fashion to Eigen Layer’s incorporation of EIGEN, we think it may be interesting to explore ARB’s potential utility as a secondary bonding. We recognize this becomes relevant only with the topic of multiple, active proposers, and we look forward to learning and discussion updates as they come.