After reviewing the proposal, forum discussions, and the last calls, I’ve found several practical considerations worth sharing.
Regarding the audit costs, I was not aware of the barrier this represents for projects building on Arbitrum. Considering what @stonecoldpat mentioned in the meeting about audit costing “anything between like $50k $100k or $200k depending on the size of your code”, I understand the hurdles teams face in early-stage funding. It is important to make these subsidies readily available for the growth of the ecosystem.
Accepting applications for only two weeks as previously approached could limit audit support for projects, so I believe that having a continuous application process, as proposed, would eliminate those service gaps. Builders should be allowed to seek support when they need it, not just when a window happens to be open.
The ADPC established a solid framework for the concept to be optimized further and scaled by the AF, additionally I agree with @pedrob’s comment on the need to develop a long-term, sustainable framework. Regarding the increased budget, I think it is fair to say that given the substantial demand shown in the Arbitrum Security Subsidy Fund: Outcome Report (56 applications with 22 selected) and considering a year-round availability of the program, this seems practical and beneficial overall.
A key final takeaway is that this is less about “who should run the program” and more about ensuring the ecosystem has consistent, funded audit support with minimal bureaucratic overhead.
Voting FOR in Snapshot.