Arbitrum Audit Program

[pedrob]

I vote in favor of this proposal in the temp-check.

However, I want to clarify something: my signal in the temp-check specifically means that I agree with the motivation behind the proposal and the idea of “quickly” setting up a subsidy fund for audits—something essential to supporting developers in Arbitrum.

That being said, I believe the proposal still needs some modifications for me to maintain this vote on Tally.

I attended the unrecorded call where the ADPC and the Foundation exchanged views on the execution of the subsidy fund and their approach moving forward. I understand there is an intention to collaborate, share ADPC’s learnings, and strengthen the program. However, for me, that intention alone is not enough—I want to see those learnings materialized in a framework that is sustainable over time and does not rely on the Foundation stepping into the DAO and taking full ownership of the proposal, as I believe that is not a viable long-term solution.

@pedrob

I believe the process developed by the ADPC did have value, mainly in the criteria outlined for both auditors and projects selection. Maintaining continuity in the process and criteria provides predictability for auditors and projects looking to apply and how to improve for future applications. It also allows the DAO to replace program managers without friction or negatively impacting the program.

In that sense, building a new program from scratch will cause the very delays you are trying to avoid. And of course, this will happen again in the future.

I’m very happy to see you stepping up and getting more directly involved in the DAO. What concerns me, however, is the possibility of you taking ownership of the initiatives and starting from scratch, which could lead to the loss of sustainable frameworks that don’t rely on a single provider or manager (or at least with the intention of reaching that point.). It’s true that you may be the most suitable to execute this work and lead the committee, but I’d prefer that, as a DAO, we can be a bit more inefficient if it means developing frameworks that are sustainable over time for when you decide to step back again.

Additionally, I echo @krst comments and would like to see them explicitly incorporated into the proposal text.

@krst

One thing we’d like to point out about the proposal itself is that the Foundation will run the subsidy fund on behalf of the DAO using the DAO’s funds. As such, we’ll hold them to the same standard as any and all other contributors and service providers, and we actually expect them to be an example of what a DAO-funded program should look like.