Im voting YES.
Audits are simply a crucial part to create a safe environment for user and developer.
It helps a brand getting stronger and getting a good reputation.
Simply said, there is no downside.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, we support programs that lower barriers for early-stage teams to build confidently on Arbitrum. Audit costs often block promising projects from launching safely, and this initiative directly addresses that issue.
Since the Snapshot vote, weâve seen meaningful improvements in the proposal. One concern we had earlier was around eligibility criteria - specifically, how the committee would define which projects can apply. Thatâs now clearly addressed in the updated version, which helps set expectations and filters out applications that donât meet the intended purpose of the program.
We also appreciate the added clarity around transparency reporting. Having quarterly updates is good to keep the DAO informed.
Overall, the proposal has shaped up well, and weâre aligned with the direction itâs taking.
I voted FOR this proposal.
I voted against on Snapshot because there were conflicting messages from the Foundation and the ADPC team regarding the authorship of the proposal.
However:
Compared to the previous proposal on Snapshot, the Arbitrum Foundation made several concessions, including my comments on the board, to add more members from the DAO, since the DAO is paying. This will have a positive impact on transparency and give more credibility to this program.
In any case, the usefulness of this proposal outweighs the internal debates about governance and ownership of this proposal.
Voting FOR
Although I have concerns with this proposal, I believe itâs a useful mechanism and trust the AF and OCL will be able to make descent enough decisions here.
voting AGAINST on the current onchain vote because I donât agree with internalizing this program into the Arbitrum Foundation.
2 Likes
I voted FOR, as we need a vehicle to support builders. I trust that the entities running the program are well prepared to do it. I hope we can discuss how to have it run by OpCo down the line so we reduce the friction of having several entities engaged with it.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Tally after having abstained in the temperature check. Having heard feedback from delegates, the improved transparency and detailed eligibility requirements, and aligning with the overall goals of the initiative to empower our ecosystem of builders and assist in the securing of expensive audits that often serve as a barrier.
Many of the issues with this proposal remain around the potential impact on $ARB and the role of the Arbitrum Foundation. It is our view that the internalization of this role by the AF is a positive step towards the DAOâs maturity. The transparency included in the updated version of the proposal, along with the development of the OpCo for accountability, will bring the AF into tighter relations with the DAO and will further the trust between OCL, AF, and Arbitrum DAO to further effect positive change on the Arbitrum Ecosystem together. The DAO is not able to provide the expertise on the audit vendors and determining which projects are deserving of the services. This proposal and itâs support from ADPC highlights an improvement in the position of the AF alongside the DAO and we support such initiatives. We agree with @jameskbhâs view with optimism looking ahead to the reduced friction and defined lanes for the entities that drive Arbitrum forward.
After reviewing the discussion and the updated proposal from the Foundation, weâve decided to change our vote from Against to For on Tally.
Audit costs are a real challenge for builders with limited budgets, and audits are crucial for establishing confidence and trust between projects and users. We believe this initiative will encourage more high-quality projects to build on Arbitrum, which ultimately benefits the entire ecosystem.
Iâve decided to support this proposal on Tally. During the off-chain vote I voted in favor, asking, however to address some issues that I considered to be important before moving on-chain. I appreciate that feedback was integrated and that this revised version of the proposal is characterized by enhanced transparency and also contains better-defined eligibility criteria.
I believe that supporting projects with audit expenses is essential, and I hope that this proposal will prove to address this effectively.
We recognize the Arbitrum Audit Programâs intent to bolster ecosystem security and growth by subsidizing audits for early-stage and loyal projects. However, as founders ourselves, we doubt its success due to the mandatory âArbitrum-firstâ exclusivity clause. Requiring audited code to remain exclusive to Arbitrum for a fixed period in exchange for a $100K-$300K subsidy could deter promising projects, as it imposes a significant non-competition constraint that limits strategic flexibilityâsomething weâd never accept for our own ventures. An alternative could be a more founder-friendly approach, such as offering a base subsidy for launching on Arbitrum (without exclusivity) and additional incentives (e.g., bonus funding or grants) for meeting ecosystem contribution milestones, like TVL or user growth, over a short priority period. This would align incentives without locking projects in. Given the current proposalâs rigid terms donât reflect such flexibility, weâll vote to abstain, as we support the goal but question the executionâs practicality.
Iâm voting FOR this proposal on Tally
I am much more satisfied with the new version of the proposal published after my vote on Snapshot.
Clarity has been added regarding the conditions for teams to participate, as well as the payment terms, thus ensuring the best terms and positioning to negotiate in favor of Arbitrum.
Additionally, a transparency report was introduced, from which we will be able to gain insights and the necessary information so that, in case the foundation decides not to continue with the program, the DAO can pick up where it left off.
Finally, I believe the endorsement of the ADPC for this process is not insignificant.
I will be voting AGAINST on Tally, due to the same concern outlines in my previous off-chain vote as well as the decision to bring it up under the Foundationâs wing.
1 Like
We are casting a FOR vote on this proposal on Tally. We believe that the Foundation, in collaboration with the OpCo, has been making meaningful decisions, and now is an opportune moment for it to take a more active role in proposing improvements. Given the transparency outlined in the updated proposal, we do not see this increased involvement as a threat to decentralization. Decentralization remains a core principle of the ecosystem, but accepting input from the Foundation does not undermine itâultimately, it is the delegates who decide.
Audits are a crucial element in maintaining a secure ecosystem, and we believe the Foundation is taking the right steps by bringing this issue forward.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATâs governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. Itâs based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Weâre voting FOR the proposal.
When we supported the proposal during temp-check, we pointed out that weâll be treating this initiative like all other DAO-lead initiatives and expect the same level of oversight from the DAO to be applied. Thatâs because even though the Foundation will be administering it, the program was funded by the DAO.
Weâre pleased to see the Foundation include a regular reporting cadence in the proposal to address the above point. With that in mind, we look forward to seeing the program set up and ready to accept applications.
1 Like
Voted For: For the same reason as my comment on the Snapshot vote.
Its also great to see my suggestion to push for payment in ARB to auditors in the Tally proposal.
Additionally, we will seek when possible to offer the payment in ARB as opposed to USD, subject to the auditorâs needs.
Considerations:
I am sharing my considerations with the intent of being helpful, not judgmental. Everything that benefits our DAO should be pursued and completed.
The 100K figure might be a rough estimate of the total cost. Similarly, setting a target of 100 projects may not be a highly professional approach. However, the more projects we complete, the better. This approach is honest and alleviates some pressure from those managing the project. I understand the DAOâs response to a similar comment, but I still believe that reducing stress for the members is important. My concern stems from past experiences where project costs were miscalculated.
I also believe that assistance with auditing is necessary, as it could help reduce overall costs. However, before investing resources into auditing, each project should be carefully evaluated. If a project has fundamental issues that are likely to lead to its abandonment, spending money on auditing it would be wasteful. Pushing a problematic project forward only for it to be abandoned later would result in unnecessary expenses.
Pros:
More projects will be completed, hopefully at a lower cost, leading to increased income for the DAO.
ADPC, one of our core components, will have another opportunity to provide value to the DAO by ensuring projects reach completion rather than being abandoned.
A point that I find noteworthy is that two committee members are waiving their payment. While I do not oppose committee payments in general, I have observed cases where committees charge excessively high fees, which makes me more skeptical about certain proposals. In this case, the fact that members are voluntarily forgoing their compensation reflects a commitment to the DAOâs success rather than personal gain. (In general, I believe that fair compensation aligned with market standards is reasonable. However, when fees are disproportionately high, it raises concerns about whether the primary motivation is the DAOâs well-being or financial gain)
There is much more to discuss regarding this proposal, but I do not wish to repeat arguments that have already been analyzed. Instead, I have focused on the key points that justify my FOR vote.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We acknowledge that, after showing our general support on Snapshot, the program managers include publishing quarterly transparency reports. We will follow up on a possible permanent audit subsidy program based on the results from them as well as seeing the clear situation the OpCo establishment.
I will vote for abstain on Tally.
There are strong reasons to support this proposal, such as its goal of lowering audit costs for early-stage projects, promoting ecosystem growth, and ensuring security through third-party audits. Also, the structured approachâDAO oversight, a technical expert, and transparency reportsâdemonstrates alignment with OpCo and responsible fund management.
However, attempting to extract $10M from 30M ARB at the current price of $0.32 raises concerns. The proposal relies on conversions that may not achieve the intended funding amount, potentially impacting both the programâs execution and ARBâs market stability. Selling such a large portion of ARB could have unintended consequences.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We supported this proposal during the temp check as we are confident that the Foundation and OCL possess the necessary technical expertise to successfully manage the program. The inclusion of a team member from OpCo is also good.
However, we recognize that at least one Foundation member is currently participating in the ongoing election. If elected, we believe it would be preferable to appoint an alternative party to the committee to maintain balance.
Additionally, we appreciate the inclusion of subsidiary payment conditions and transparency reports. The commitment to a structured, quarterly reporting cadence is a valuable addition that enhances accountability.
Iâm voting FOR on tally, I think at this time we do need some audit to help grow and also to pick the best of the proposals, as long as all this process, wich is very well explained in this project, is transparent enough, for me is a yes!