This is a great proposal, and the subsequent discussion was also insightful.
The benefits I see here are:
- Increased incentives to engage more in the DAO governance. I personally consider myself an example of this. (You will see me more engaged in the DAO discussions.)
- Adding utility for the $ARB token and joining the revenue-sharing narratives in the bull market. However, as others have mentioned, the DAO revenue is currently insufficient in Which I am Fine with This.
However, I want to express my concern regarding the Karma calculations of 80, as others have mentioned this. There is a risk of voting power centralization tied to a small number of delegates. Clearly, just a UI warning would not be enough to help with VP decentralization. There need to be incentives to delegate VP to smaller delegates at the smart contract level. As a small delegate, I would be more incentivized to participate in the DAO discussions then.
Regarding timing and attack incentives, @bendi raised great points. Things can change quickly, especially after ETH ETF approvals. Generally, asset prices move sideways 80% of the times and form strong trends 20% of the time. A rising trend in $ETH prices could justify an attack on Arbitrum DAO now that there is a clear conviction that ETH is long-term bullish due to the ETF. Attackers can also be sophisticated actors by borrowing some ARB tokens on DeFi protocols and hedging their position on PERP markets, making it easier to attack the DAO than we might think. Therefore, we need a plan to avoid possible black swan events.
I also want to point out some positive effects and sentiment around $ARB holders when Arbitrum chains get congested and fees start to increase due to a Most anticipated event such as LayerZero TGE. In such events, $ARB holders will feel more satisfaction as they benefit directly from the earned revenue. I experienced the same feelings after the implementation of EIP-1559 when the $Shiba memecoin congested the Ethereum network and burned a notable amount of ETH.