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!
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)
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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!
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Hi everyone, we have posted a non-consitutional onchain AIP to officially request funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator.
We officially confirm that the 2 multi-sig addresses listed as recipients of the proposal are under the control of the Arbitrum Foundation.
-
Multi-Sig A - Proposing to receive 4,234 ETH
-
Multi-Sig B - Proposing to receive 900 ETH
3 Likes
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR funding the first BoLD validator on Tally.
This step is a logical development for an optimistic rollup, while the capital costs are high, they are justified to keep the cost of an attack (by either parties involved) low. However, we have one outstanding question. The whitepaper for BoLD states that there will eventually be a trustless pool for people to stake their capital in order to bootstrap more validators. What exactly is the timeline for this?
I just voted in favor of funding the first BoLD validator. My main reason is security: having a ‘first honest proposer’ always available is crucial for reducing the risk of malicious actors, as the BoLD protocol only requires one honest participant to maintain its integrity.
Initially, I had concerns about potential centralization. However, after reading more about the BoLD protocol + the trustless bonding pools, I’m convinced these mechanisms provide strong incentives for diverse participation in both proposing and challenging, which helps to maintain a decentralized network.
I voted FOR: After reviewing the proposal and comments I believe a BoLD validator in terms of security and long-term goals for the Arbitrum network is necessary. I also like the collaboration between Arbitrum DAO on Arbitrum Foundation on this matter.
I voted for in favor of the proposal because, after considering the details and community feedback, I believe that having a BoLD validator is crucial for the security and long-term objectives of the Arbitrum network.
I voted “For” after hearing the proposal in the call, it makes sense to have the first BoLD validator being a known honest party.
This develepment should not be stoped or delayed at this stage because of costs so i also agree with the requested funds.
We’re voting FOR this proposal. The reimbursement structure for L1 gas costs could serve as a blueprint for sustainable validator economics across L2 networks. By shouldering these costs initially, we’re lowering barriers to entry for future validators, potentially accelerating decentralization. This approach might also pressure competing L2s to adopt similar models.
The FranklinDAO/PennBlockchain team voted FOR this proposal on Tally. We support the Arbitrum Foundation running the first BoLD validator should it be approved on chain. We fully support the move to permissionless proposer and challenger roles and it’s an important step toward for Arbitrum to become a Stage 2 Rollup. Although the proposed bond requirements are high, we see the value in preventing spam transactions/challenges. We are waiting on the Tally vote for the BoLD implementation and will be voting FOR that proposal as well.
I voted FOR this onchain proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined above.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We supported the proposal to upgrade Arbitrum One and Nove to use BoLD during temp-check while committing to a deep-dive before casting our vote when the proposal goes onchain. This Tally proposal is only about the ETH needed to bootstrap the first BoLD validator, given that the onchain proposal to enable BoLD passes - or funds will be returned to the DAO in the event it doesn’t.
Therefore, we’re voting in its favor, and looking forward to seeing the finalized proposal to upgrade Arbitrum One and Nova to use BoLD. As a reminder, the ARDC has conducted a security analysis of the BoLD proposal.
1 Like
We vote For the proposal on Tally.
We maintain the support described in the Snapshot phase and look forward to the proposal to enable the BoLD soon.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
Our team doesn’t have much experience with the technical aspects mentioned in the proposal. We’re learning and trying to understand them better.
However, after hearing the proposal on the governance call and reading through the comments on this post, we believe it makes sense to have the first BoLD validator.
I’m voting FOR this proposal.
Having a ‘first honest proposer’ available is crucial for minimizing the risk of malicious actors.
Honestly, it’s difficult not to consider the risk of centralization, but ensuring reliable actors run this infrastructure is essential for the ecosystem’s long-term health.