Arbitrum Audit Program

Proposals
82

Here is the SimScore Report during the Snapshot Round of forum replies.

image
image790×668 23.2 KB

Arbitrum Audit Program: Consensus Evolution

Key Insights

The visualization shows how community consensus has evolved from the Forum to Snapshot round:

  1. Stronger Preference for DAO Governance

    • Forum round (red dot) showed mixed governance preferences
    • Snapshot round (green dot) shifted significantly toward DAO control
    • Top response (51% similarity): “I don’t agree with internalizing into the Arbitrum Foundation”

  2. Consistent Support for Audit Program Concept

    • Both positions remain high on the value curve
    • Second top response (51% similarity): “The DAO currently lacks an active audit program, and launching this initiative at the earliest could be highly beneficial”
    • Strong recognition that “audit support is one of the most frequently requested forms of assistance”

  3. Historical Context Recognition

    • Increased acknowledgment of ADPC’s past contributions
    • References to “ADPC has been exceptionally strong at ecosystem growth”
    • Concern about whether new program can “replicate or improve upon these ecosystem-building efforts”

The snapshot position approaches what appears to be a higher-value point on the curve - maintaining support for the program while showing stronger preference for DAO governance rather than Foundation control."

Top 10 Responses

Top 1
voting Against on the current offchain vote because I don’t agree with internalizing into the Arbitrum Foundation, a job that the DAO was previously doing. Even when the service providers doing that job for the DAO were taking too long, wasting resources, denying audit subsidies to worthy projects, porting the whole program to competing ecosystems, etc. I don’t condone the way the ADPC acted in their past 2 terms, but I also don’t think internalizing this job into the Foundation is the right approach. What I think we need is an Arbitrum DAO run, dedicated Audit Subsidy program, that would run continuously and would report their actions to the DAO with the utmost transparency possible. And executed by new and fresh service providers that are exclusive to Arbitrum. @paulofonseca

Top 2
The DAO currently lacks an active audit program, and launching this initiative at the earliest could be highly beneficial for the ecosystem. Based on our daily interactions with builders, audit support is one of the most frequently requested forms of assistance. The first iteration of the ADPC’s audit program was highly successful, and this new proposal builds on that foundation while addressing previous gaps. @Saurabh

Top 3
I think the Arbitrum Audit Program has a lot of potential and addresses an important need. Smart contract audits are essential, especially for early-stage projects that might not have the resources to afford them. Helping these teams launch securely not only protects users but also strengthens the entire Arbitrum ecosystem. I also appreciate the idea of offering subsidies as investments in some cases, which could help align projects with Arbitrum over the long term. @TodayInDeFi

Top 4
Overall, we believe that key, high-impact projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem should have the opportunity to be part of this initiative. This would allow the Audit Program not only to support the growth of new participants but also to strengthen the projects that currently contribute the most on-chain value. @Camelot

Top 5
Voted For: Controversy about this proposal comes from how this was handled and not the content of the proposal itself. From my understanding, the audit program at the moment doesn’t exist, which is a bad thing. For many new projects (especially DeFi), audits are a crucial and most expensive task to do before launch. To be a welcoming chain, it would be awesome to help high-end projects with this. This is the reason I voted and support this proposal. @Tekr0x.eth

Top 6
I think Arbitrum Audit Program will help new projects on Arbitrum pay for security audits, which are very expensive but very important. It will make sure smart contracts are safe and protect users’ money. @danielM

Top 7
Given ADPC’s track record, I am uncertain whether the Arbitrum Audit Program will be able to replicate or improve upon these ecosystem-building efforts. While this new program may enhance the technical side of audits, it is unclear if it will achieve the same level of community engagement, exposure, and long-term protocol support that ADPC has demonstrated. @TodayInDeFi

Top 8
Camelot is voting “Abstain” on the Arbitrum Audit Program. @Camelot

Top 9
While I see the potential benefits of this proposal, I remain uncertain about whether it will be a significant improvement over ADPC. The Arbitrum Foundation may have better technical expertise to optimize the audit selection and facilitation process, but ADPC has been exceptionally strong at ecosystem growth, marketing, and building lasting relationships with protocols. Additionally the cost savings is not enough that it’s a major deciding factor for this proposal. @TodayInDeFi

Top 10
I voted FOR the proposal on Snapshot. I’d like to add here that the Arbitrum DAO has recently begun the process of selecting Arbitrum’s strategic objectives (SOS). Eventually this will lead to initiatives that will help launch apps/projects on Arbitrum that align with these objectives. Why do I mention that? I hope Arbitrum Audit Committee will prioritize such projects and dApps. @TempeTechie

SimScore: Crowd Wisdom Beyond Votes

SimScore finds the center of collective thinking. The top responses by similarity represent the replies closest to the community’s collective mindset.

The visualization above shows how this collective wisdom evolved from the open forum round to the Snapshot forum round.

5 Likes
83

I voted ABSTAIN in Snapshot because, while the motivations of the proposal are valid and it would provide crucial opportunities for emerging projects that, due to limited budgets, are unable to start their audits, the existence of a previous project with the same objective complicated my decision.

This previous project has already been approved, so why should we accept a new proposal with the same goals? This is not to detract from the current AF proposal, as I fully support its cause and recognize the importance of auditing and supporting initial projects.

However, my uncertainty appears from the fact that investment has already been made in a previous initiative. Why do we need to approve another similar proposal when a project with the same goals is still underway? This could involve double the effort and resources, which is not justified. With the current information and the existence of ongoing discussions about the two initiatives, I prefered to abstain.

84

Voting in favour of this. I think this will perform well under the AF. A DAO iniaitive has gone under the AF for efficiency purposes as far as i understand.

This is a plus in my eyes. They’re supporting the dao. take it as a win

85

We agree with what the proposal is trying to achieve and believe that this subsidy scheme provided is a great initiative that would greatly help development on Arbitrum. While the miscommunication was unfortunate, the audit program and providing this form of support would still be a great way to help out in development of high quality projects on Arbitrum. At the very least it has been stated that the final goal between the Foundation and ADPC are aligned. However, just something that we would like to see be further touched up on are the evaluation metrics. We think that seeing how many projects launch on Arbitrum are a good start but TVL growth and measuring stuff like transaction volume on each of these audited projects and user activity should be considered too to truly understand how effective the program is in promoting growth.

86

LobbyFi voted abstain on the Audit Program proposal since neither the “for” nor the “against” pool in the community auction has reached the needed threshold (10% of the instant buy we have set).

87

I voted FOR to this proposal. I support the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs to execute this program well, and considering that the ADPC team gave the Foundation its endorsement, I am supportive. Commitment is needed to achieve the same level of transparency as other teams, like ADPC.

88

DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

AF and OCL do have the technical expertise to handle this. Also, addressing the lessons learned from the ADPC, most especially time to action, we are confident this program would be better.

Over time, however, we would love to see the DAO take more ownership of this and eventually full ownership, and materializing a framework for this cause just as @pedrob suggested would be great.

89

I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the audit support program has been a benefit to Arbitrum in its form as the ADPC, and I’m comfortable moving it under the AF going forward.

90

Quick heads up that the recording from the call today is restricted.

92

Arbitrum Audit Program - Office Hours - 2025/03/03 12:57 EST - Recording - Google Drive here is the recording of yesterday’s office hours (3rd March). Only 2 delegates attended and there were no questions raised.

3 Likes
93

We’d like to thank everyone for their comments!

We have updated the main forum post with the following new sections:

  • Eligibility requirements,
  • Subsidy Payment Conditions,
  • Transparency report.

We have explicitly highlighted that we will not exchange all ARB to USD from the onset and perform an exchange periodically throughout the program’s duration. Additionally, relevant legal agreements will require any audited code to remain exclusive to Arbitrum for a fixed period of time.

We hope everyone can take this opportunity to review the changes, leave additional feedback, and hopefully we will be ready to put the proposal up for a vote next Thursday (13th March 2025)

3 Likes
94

Several good improvements that i see here:

I like all of these addition which address most of what was proposed by several delegates. I also like adding one member of the opco because the sheer amount of work could potentially be important, and having more members involved in the DAO can be beneficial even just for comms and to keep context.

1 Like
95

Gauntlet supports the Arbitrum Audit Program. Clearer eligibility requirements and transparency reports are welcome additions. We do believe this is something that OpCo can help further decentralize and hold the Arbitrum Foundation accountable for (if needed, although we don’t expect this to be the case) in the future.

96

Hi everyone, this proposal is now live on Tally, and voting begins on Thursday, March 20th, 2025.

We confirm that we control the multi-sig 0x38429F9E67559cDA82EEd04a5895C5C11e779E05, which is the receiving address on the Tally proposal for the 30M ARB proposed.

2 Likes
97

I voted FOR on Tally. The reason: Arbitrum Audit Program - #68 by danielM

98

I vote in favor of this proposal on Tally. I believe ADPC’s track record speaks for itself, as it has been a great support in the development of the ecosystem. I think this audit program could help reduce reliance on a single third party and save us excessive costs for this service. I support it as long as there is transparency in the audits conducted, ensuring they are carried out effectively, as a coding error could cause significant harm. I appreciate the improvements presented and the emphasis on not converting all ARB to stablecoins yet, given the current market conditions, as it would take us a long time to recover.

1 Like
99

LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal

LobbyFi will follow the same logic for making the auction available and pricing the proposal as for the offchain proposal.

With the current ETH price, the instant buy price will be set at 0.6 ETH.

100

I’m casting my vote in favor of this proposal on Tally.

Back in my first comment, I was pretty vocal about liking the main idea behind this program—giving early-stage projects a hand with the steep costs of smart contract audits so they can launch on Arbitrum without cutting corners on security. But I did flag three things that had me a bit concerned: how we’d keep projects from jumping ship after getting the subsidy, how this setup stands up against what the ADPC did before, and whether the budget was a bit too hefty. Since then, the proposal has gotten some solid updates, especially with the new sections on who’s eligible, how payments will work, and how they’ll keep us in the loop with transparency reports.

The updated proposal now explicitly states that audited code must remain exclusive to Arbitrum for a fixed period, with legal agreements enforcing this. Breaching exclusivity requires repaying the full subsidy to the DAO via the Arbitrum Foundation, with potential legal recourse or a DAO ban from future initiatives. This is a strong step toward ensuring commitment, though I still believe we could go further.

What if we added a rule where projects that abandon Arbitrum exclusivity within, say, 6 months after the exclusivity period ends have to pay back part of the subsidy in ARB tokens? The amount they’d owe could depend on how soon they leave—like, if they bail just 3 months after the exclusivity period, they’d repay 50% of the subsidy. I think this would give projects a real reason to stay committed to Arbitrum for the long haul, especially for those who might see the exclusivity period as just a box to check rather than a true commitment. Plus, it means the DAO gets some ARB back, which could grow in value over time and help the ecosystem even more.

101

I will ABSTAIN from [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program:

As a builder in the space myself who had to complete security compliance and benefitted from support from DAO initiatives, I can strongly emphasize A. the importance of proper security auditing B. the significance of supporting early ventures in making it happen. The capacity of a new protocol or project to internally fund all security requirements is not a mark of its potential value to the ecosystem. Many projects simply don’t have the funds to establish compliance and are left unable to proceed forward. Without supporting these ventures, Arbitrum as an ecosystem would likely lose a tremendous amount of potential value.

That said, I am unsure why the conversion of ARB to USDC has to occur immediately and place downward pressure on the value of the ARB token (unless there is an OTC process I am missing). I imagine it may be to keep the total number of potentially supported projects at the rounded 100. However, candidly, 100 seems excessive to begin with, so in the event of downside price action, I’m not sure fewer than 100 would be a tragedy. And, given price action is bi-directional and markets are fairly compressed at present, we may actually see an expansion in token value and room for even more than 100 projects. Ultimately, I believe periodic (ideally OTC) swaps would be preferable. For this reason, I will ABSTAIN from this proposal. Should the community support it broadly, I would happily see it pass. However, should it not pass and need revision the above would be my suggestion.

102

gm, strongly in favor of this program.

Audits are necessary but prohibitively expensive for early builders. This creates the right incentives:

  • Helps builders overcome a critical hurdle
  • Enhances Arbitrum’s security reputation
  • Encourages ecosystem-first launches

A must-have toolkit to support new and existing builders on Arbitrum.

Thanks