I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. Audits are costly, and allocating $10M from the Arbitrum DAO to cover part of these costs can significantly alleviate this burden. As previously mentioned in some of my comments, investing in and boosting the Arbitrum ecosystem is essential with the L2 competition going on, and this proposal is a step in the right direction.
Two key considerations:
- Ensure that projects demonstrate high potential, have an MVP, and possess a real user base
- Ensure that projects are committed to Arbitrum first and won’t migrate to another ecosystem. I support @danielM idea of setting up an agreement requiring projects to maintain their development efforts on Arbitrum, with a reimbursement clause if they fully migrate to another L2. I would love to hear some feedbacks on the feasibility of this from @Arbitrum.
Implementing such a program can give Arbitrum a competitive edge in attracting builders and value in the Layer 2 landscape. I find the proposal well-designed and the overall cost related to the committee to be small and very competitive.
While I strongly support this proposal, I will vote ‘Abstain’ to help reach the quorum and avoid any potential COI. As mentionned I work for Kleros, which is building its V2 natively on Arbitrum (more information here), and we could potentially benefit from this program in the future.