The PBC Governance team is voting FOR combining Timeboost and the Nova fee sweep into one Tally vote.
As other delegates mentioned, there isn’t really much to discuss that hasn’t been discussed in the original thread on Timeboost. (We agree that it’s potentially a good source of DAO revenue and reduces the incentive to spam the chain, but it’s something the DAO will need to monitor with live data) Additionally, as PBC voted for the Nova Fee Router prop last year, we also support sweeping the remaining Nova revenue into the treasury.
Combining these two proposals for an onchain vote makes sense. Plus, having supported the Timeboost proposal during its temp check, we had no issue supporting here as well.
LobbyFi voted in support of the proposal since the ‘for’ pool of the community auction accrued more ETH than the ‘against’ pool at the end of the voting period on LobbyFi.
If by “slower”, you are referencing the time it takes to get a confirmation/response about your transaction from the sequencer (also called soft finality), then the response time for a non-express lane transaction may be between 250ms or 450ms. Once your transaction is submitted, it cannot be viewed by others or re-ordered (assuming it is valid). It will be executed in the order it is received after taking into account the timestamps of all express lane transactions, non-express lane transactions, and the nominal 200ms delay.
Regular transactions will continue to be processed with 250ms block times. However, because of the added nominal delay of 200ms, a regular transaction destined for block n, might end up in block n+1 (depending on when the sequencer received the transaction, how long it took to process, and assuming it is an otherwise valid transaction).
We agree. We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem. The goal for doing so is to provide the ArbitrumDAO with objective, transparent insights so that the ArbitrumDAO can make informed decisions on how to fine-tune Timeboost to achieve the ArbitrumDAO’s goals. Furthermore, since the data will be public or on-chain, we welcome community members to contribute ideas and tooling in service of this mission.
I think it’s unfortunate that these two proposals are combined. They are related by topic, but not at all related by impact and purpose.
Any discussion around either of these proposals will now be marred by confusion and conflation of the two, and our human natures may leave us inclined to have our approval of one part of the proposal (funds for the DAO) influence how we feel about the other part of the proposal (the implementation details of something technically complex over which people currently making money off of MEV have an immense interest in influencing).
To be clear, I am not arguing against either proposal taken in isolation, but I am arguing against the combination of the two, and any other combination of proposals in a similar manner. As a matter of “topic hygiene”, I don’t think topics should be combined in this manner in the future.
Once again, I am voting FOR on Tally. Sentiment is the same as when I voted on Snapshot, this a no brainer that generally improves the network and adds extra treasury funds. Not much else to add.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi will follow the logic outlined in the rationale presented on February 1st for the Snapshot proposal:
For this reason, the auction will be turned on and we highly encourage anyone who wants to support this proposal to try out our community auction. The instant buy will be set relatively high (1% from the financial part: 1885 ETH * 1% ≈ 18.85 ETH) in order to prevent a potential “troll” from purchasing the “against” option - we consider it very unlikely that either option will be purchased via instant buy.
With Timeboost also being adopted with this proposal, we see no reason to change the price for this proposal.