AIP/RFC Constitutional/Non-Constitutional Incentive Airdrop for Early Supporters who sent their airdrop to the contract address

General
1

Upgraded Proposal: Arbitrum Airdrop for Early Supporters Who Returned ARB Tokens

update Replaced word voluntarily with erroneusly up to proper intention. At that time arbitrum foundation didnt organise any burning, donation event

Objective

Reward wallets that erroneusly returned ARB tokens during the first airdrop (23 March 2023), reinforcing community trust and ethical standards.

Motivation

  • Recognize Integrity: Publicly reward ethical behavior to set a precedent.
  • Boost Engagement: Incentivize positive participation in governance.
  • Rebuild Reputation: Demonstrate Arbitrum’s commitment to fairness and transparency.

Specification

Feature Original Proposal Upgraded Proposal
Recipients Wallets that returned ARB tokens Wallets that returned ARB tokens (verified on-chain), plus optional bonus for early governance participation
Amount Proportional to tokens returned Proportional, with a minimum threshold to ensure meaningful rewards
Distribution Onchain, Ethereum Mainnet Onchain, via Arbitrum One (Layer 2) to save fees and promote ecosystem use
Timing TBD by governance vote Within 60 days of vote approval, with public timeline and progress dashboard
Transparency Not specified Full eligibility list and methodology published before distribution
Governance Link Not specified Recipients offered optional temporary voting delegation to encourage governance participation
Reservation Foundation may modify/cancel DAO retains final authority; any changes require public notice and DAO vote

Rationale

  • Publicly highlight ethical behavior: Feature recipients in DAO communications.
  • Encourage ongoing engagement: Offer recipients a fast-track path to join future onboarding or governance bootcamps.
  • Promote transparency: Publish eligibility and distribution details before execution.

Impact

  • Strengthens trust and engagement.
  • Sets a visible standard for ethical participation.
  • Drives positive media coverage and community sentiment.

Next Steps

  • Community feedback and discussion.
  • Publish full eligibility criteria and allocation formula.
  • Governance vote.
  • Execute airdrop and announce distribution.
  • Invite recipients to participate in governance and onboarding programs.

Poll Options

  • Yes: Proceed with the upgraded ARB token reward for eligible wallets.
  • No: Do not proceed at this time.
  • Abstain

This upgraded proposal not only rewards early ethical supporters but also integrates them into the DAO’s ongoing governance and onboarding initiatives, maximizing both impact and visibility

Attachments :

  1. List of all community members affected
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UUE07AKpzODr4JFr4zQKcv-Phj_cRW6C/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=101718138233574416755&rtpof=true&sd=true
1 Like
2

Pls @olimpio @krst , we need your support. You will remember I had sought for your assistance with regard to this before. Some of us erroneously sent our airdrops to Arbitrum Contract address on claim day. Pls help us retrieve.

3

Actually these two smart contracts were involved

0x67a24CE4321aB3aF51c2D0a4801c3E111D88C9d9

0x912CE59144191C1204E64559FE8253a0e49E6548

Seeing many of addressses from both contracts and funds that were sent back were not compromised by behavior and still are not compromised. So in numberous cases we exclude hackers activity

I believe that redistribution terms included in proposal would expand arbitrum community that in my opinion went a bit more silent recently after 2 years. That is marketing benefit. 2nd benefit is trust benefit. After many recent launches and shady things that would build up Arbitrum reputation even greater than it is now (and now remains very good)
3rd and financial benefit is that releasing tokens to more users as market cap of arbitrum ecosystem grew couple x times would benefit on price of ARB even more, attracting even more investors which would be beneficial both sides

Share your opinion guys

Tell me : if there is voting

Would you vote :
Yes to proceed with such initiative
No to abstain with such initiative

In first post about recovering, nobody knew possible benefits as the time was different. Now what we see mentioned and seein also market condition would make different / positive impact on overall

1 Like
4

Hello and thanks for the proposal.

I am quite unsure about the initiative, for several reasons.
First, the numbers presented and users impacted is unclear. Despite the spreadsheet, we first have a lot of disorganization in there (3 different sheet). I am going to assume that the last sheet is the one with the proper amount of arb since in the first 2 we have some bogus transaction (was easy to find this one that shows >800k fake tokens being sent back). If so, we are talking about around 150k arb give or take, and 140 users give or take.

On the merit: I don’t think is a good idea because crypto is plenty, unfortunately, of users who send tokens back to certain contract. This happens constantly, for several reasons, and we can find examples on main net with the weth contract holding more than 750 eth that were wrongly sent there by users.

There could be a few things to do here:

  1. try to withdraw ARB from the contract
  2. take the ARB from the treasury

Point 1. would be extremely messy. Having the OCL team retrieving these assets and redistributing to users to me is not the best usage of time of their team in all honesty. Plus, is potentially not possible: skimming in the contract, I don’t see a method to withdraw assets from there but only for minting (i might be wrong of course)

image
image2486Ă—1336 267 KB

Useless to say, this operation would mean jeopardizing the security of the contract responsible for the ARB token. At the same time minting more assets might probably mean increasing the overall supply (not 100% sure about this haven’t check the code, just assuming here), so is totally out of question imho.

Point 2. would set a bad precedent. As you can see in the contracts there are not only arb but also other assets such as usdt.
Does it mean we will allow for users to claim to the dao the airdrop of these other assets?
Let’s even assume that this proposal goes through. Should we then also allow the claim of users sending ARB to the contracts after the tge date? Because as you can see, there are plenty of transactions on a monthly basis in which ARB are sent wrongfully to this address. And why should we at that point deny any request in this sense if we allowed this one in the first place?

Don’t get me wrong I am empathetic with the situation. The feeling of losing money due to mistakes in transactions is always the worst. But I don’t think we can take this liability away from the users, since we will open a can of worm related to several other situations by setting this precedent.

2 Likes
5

Your proposal is a waste of public resources and attention.

6

Thank you for your input on this.

While some of us were already aware of the points you raised, we had initially proposed that the scope of affected transactions be limited specifically to the claim date—March 23, 2023. If you review the Arbitrum Discord activity on that day, you’ll notice that several community members raised concerns about the issue during the claim process. In response, some of us were told by Arbitrum moderator that the team would investigate the matter. At that time, the DAO had not yet been full formed. As soon as the DAO was formed, the first AIP2 that was proposed at that time was for retrieval of the tokens. Most delegates advised that we re-organise the AIP2 proposal and provide that missing details, then represent it. We had challenges getting someone to help us with the proposal for some time as most of us affected know nothing about writing proposal. Also if you remember, the DAO had issue at the take off and all other proposals not relating to DAO formation and fund spending were stepped down.

On the claim day, 93 wallets sent tokens to the contract. I will get across to this writer of this proposal to modify somethings.

7

Waste? In what way mate?
Be constructive when you criticise. You can see what @JoJo did with his opinion on the proposal, clear and understandable points.

When that number of community members - close to 100 members- have issue, DAO needs to provide support. Its never a waste of public resource and attention as you carelessly asserted.