Arbitrum Audit Program

[CastleCapital]

We voted Against the proposal on Snapshot.

Although we support the overall goal of the proposed program, we believe the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) has moved forward without adequately addressing existing concerns, particularly those raised by delegates around why the ADPC framework wasn’t fully utilized. These should have been addressed before the proposal goes to Snapshot. We believe these points should first be resolved in a way that satisfies everyone involved, as suggested by @KlausBrave:

@KlausBrave

I would even go so far as to say AF should not proceed to snapshot without and before doing a repeat call, including ADPC/the relevant service providers & it must be recorded so all global DAO participants can access the information as part of decision making.

Right now, the proposal appears to stand apart from the existing ADPC framework and we agree with @PGov that there should be a more streamlined and consistent process to ensure that leverages existing structures:

@PGov

Since the ADPC has established procurement frameworks and whitelisted security service providers, prolly makes sense to move these existing structures to streamline the implementation of the new program,

In line with what @pedrob and @krst have highlighted, we think it’s essential for the AF to incorporate or at least improve upon already established frameworks rather than proposing an entirely separate approach:

@pedrob

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.

@krst

We want to thank the ADPC for all the work they’ve done in setting up the framework and whitelisting security service providers. We hope to see the Foundation use the groundwork the ADPC has done and build on top of it.

While we have no objection to the ultimate aim of this proposal, we oppose the current process of pushing the proposal to Snapshot without first addressing the issues, and the feedback raised left a negative impression. A more inclusive approach would have strengthened the proposal, but seeing as it has moved to snapshot, we would prefer that the proposal be overhauled based on feedback received and have voted AGAINST.