The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The first iteration of the Audit Program was crucial and one of the most successful DAO programs. GMX was also one of its recipients. Audit support is a vital aspect of any project’s lifecycle, and when we speak with builders across the Arbitrum ecosystem every day, this is the most requested form of support and we fully support the initiative and would vote in favor of the proposal.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
Although this is our first time joining the discussion, we wanted to share some thoughts on the process this proposal has gone through.
At the beginning, we must admit there was quite a bit of confusion, as it was evident that there were frictions between the ADPC and the AF. Given how important this proposal is for the ecosystem, we believe this “transition” could have been handled under better conditions.
Having said that, we understand that the AF wants to take on a more active role in the DAO, and we actually welcome this decision, knowing that it’s one of the most Arbitrum-aligned entities that can bring significant value both to various initiatives and to decision-making.
However, it is important to mention that, despite this new approach, the DAO will still need Service Providers and other contributors to help achieve the objectives set through the S.O.S. That is why we emphasize the importance of ensuring that processes like this one are carried out in a structured and orderly manner. Otherwise, not only does it create uncertainty for potential SPs, but it also fosters an environment that can become toxic—not just in terms of governance dynamics but also for conducting business.
Regarding the program itself, we align with @krst’s perspective: the AF should meet the same standards required of any SP, as this is an initiative funded by the DAO. At the same time, we view the adjustments made after the initial feedback phase positively. In this regard, we believe the suggestions from various delegates have been valuable in improving this proposal and giving the DAO greater oversight over its execution.
Like many other delegates, I feel the tensions between the ADPC and AF could’ve been navigated with more grace. But let’s focus on what matters - this program is worth doing. $10M to help around 100 projects get proper security audits is money incredibly well spent. This creates true value by making our ecosystem safer while supporting early builders who need it most.
I love and believe we should promote paying out in ARB as much as possible. We need to be thoughtful stewards of our treasury - ARB is trading to low right now, and putting it on the auditors to decide when to sell is a good idea. The smart ones will choose to hodl!
Initially I voted “Abstain” on Snapshot due to valuing the importance of an audit program, however was a little hesitant to fund the AF for this task. However, upon further discussions and the changes made to the proposal I find the benefit out-weigh the costs. Many of which have been already stated above, but as we saw with other hacks there is reputational risk as well. Not necessarily any base-chains fault, but it can affect the perception for users. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this sense.