Arbitrum Now: a pragmatic approach for the Moment

Approximately three weeks ago, just before the conclusion of the Accelerating Arbitrum proposal, I shared a perspective on these forums about being highly confused about the state of the DAO and the decision-making process for protocols to engage with us. This concern was particularly pronounced as many influential and respected delegates advocated for a clear framework before any further action was taken on liquidity incentives or similar programs.

Since then, we’ve seen effort through a community call and the diligent efforts of the liquidity incentives working group. I’ve wholeheartedly participated in these discussions and have even reached out to various delegates open to dialogue. Some significant delegates have refrained from engaging in the framework design process, which means that the drafting and ratification will take much longer than most expect. This isn’t a critique of the committee’s efforts (please see Disruption Joe’s recent post which includes an update on work done in the last workshop) or the delegates; it’s merely an observation that there is a high chance we spend weeks or months discussing and preparing only to discover that the proposed framework doesn’t resonate with their vision. Having already heard various delegates articulate diametrically different views on what a framework should look like confirms this is not a simple process and will take time.

While I hold a strong belief that a formal framework will eventually prove beneficial for the DAO, my apprehension today stems from the practicality of implementing such a framework within a timeline that aligns with the pressing demands dictated by the rapidly evolving landscape. This landscape encompasses the dynamic activities of other Chains and their respective DAOs. These entities are making swift strides—established ones bolstering their native protocols while emerging chains attract projects away from Arbitrum with the lure of incentives, grants, and new users. While it might be tempting to frown upon protocols seeking opportunities elsewhere or to envision a scenario where our exceptional builders can thrive on merit alone without incentives available on other chains, the reality is that we should instead look at how the ambiguity on builder support within the ecosystem might influence their decision-making process.

I propose a pragmatic approach: the DAO is the framework, at least until a formal one is established. The DAO is endowed with the authority to manage its affairs. It acts as the evaluating committee, the approving body, and the custodian of funds to be distributed. Our existing multi-stage process, involving Proposal, Snapshot, and Tally voting, over a recommended 4-week process, inherently supports this notion. It’s incumbent upon delegates of all scales to proactively participate in discussions, provide timely feedback on proposals, and drive this process forward. Importantly, those crafting the framework will benefit immensely from the insights garnered through these discussions and votes, meaning we will get to the framework quicker and more reflective of the DAOs intent.

The present course might deviate from what people anticipated when raising their hands to become delegates. Nevertheless, this is the need of the moment. I hope we can rally around our shared responsibilities without a ratifying vote, however, if needed, a proposal could be framed as follows:

Collectively, the DAO expresses its agreement and issues guidelines to delegates, urging them to consider, evaluate, and ultimately ratify or decline individual proposals for liquidity incentives and grants based on their intrinsic merits.

Moreover, the DAO seeks the Arbitrum Foundation’s assistance in providing the community with timely feedback regarding any proposal’s adherence to the Arbitrum Constitution, administrative guidelines, and overlaps with the foundation’s activities. In cases where discrepancies arise, the Foundation could propose potential solutions.

These guidelines shall persist until such time that the DAO chooses to revise them—potentially, although not necessarily, in alignment with a formalized Framework.

This approach empowers us to drive the progress we urgently need while laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive Framework that captures the vision and aspirations of all DAO stakeholders.

We are Arbitrum, and we need to act now.


I completely agree with your sentiment. The DAO IS THE FRAMEWORK. I posted a similar sentiment yesterday and believe your reminder that the DAO IS THE FRAMEWORK is the call to action the ecosystem needs to overcome this long phase of inertia.

It was quite frustrating to see many large delegates voting “Against” the Camelot proposal and their reasoning was basically: “I’d like to vote Yes on this, but I will wait for the frameworks that are a few months away to be finished”. I can’t think of a worse reason to vote against something.

We need a sense of urgency. I also feel like there is a concerning lack of engagement from some of the top delegates. Perhaps incentives to keep delegates more involved will help with the overall pace of the DAO.


Echoing @Soby and @coinflip its worth noting that right now Optimism, Avalanche and a lot of other chains are actively talking to protocols right now encouraging them with incentives to come over.

I have no doubt that we have the right team in the Foundation and members and voters to get this right. I’ve met some incredible people over the last year and a half here and there is absolutely a path forward.

We can all see it, let’s walk it starting today.


Fully aligned with this approach.

I look forward to the DAO signalling that decisive action is required now, and that it is ready and willing to support and incentivise its native ecosystem.


100% on board with this take. The industry moves too quickly, and the DAO cannot afford months of inaction. Use the momentum that already exists before it costs more to do what will eventually need to be done.


Fully supporting this.
Frameworks are a crucial part of a chain DAO and should be established asap, but we’re almost starting from scratch here and the process is guaranteed to be long and complex - I think people that participated to the initial discussions/workshops can testify to this.
I don’t think any native Arbitrum builder would be satisfied with a situation where ecosystem incentives are frozen for months (I’ll also remind that $ARB has already been live for 5 months), especially with so many L2 competitors adopting aggressive grants strategies.


Spot on with this take. Been following the developments on the forums since April and it seems like we’re constantly a few weeks away from being a few weeks away. To be blunt, there’s a lack of discussion/participation from top delegates, but a lot of pontificating from the same delegates on CT when it comes time to vote.

We’re in an environment where liquidity is chain agnostic. Like others have said, a lot of L2 competitors are incentivizing migration. From my perspective, (as someone who’s not a builder, not a delegate, just a regular defi user) I’m ready to move my funds to where the incentives are.


Completely agree with this take. If not careful, the current inaction of the DAO is creating an environment not conducive to builders, and could ultimately lead to builders leaving Arbitrum which is scenario I hope noone here wants to come to pass.

A framework is important and would be welcome, but there seems to be no movement on the creation of one and furthermore no guarantee that one exists that will please all delegates and smaller holders. This should not be something which forces the DAO into stagnation. It is vital that the DAO continues forward in light of this, so the proposed temporary solution seems perfect while the DAO itself comes up with a framework which the majority can agree with.

In addition, the incentives of the top delegates does not seem to be aligned at the moment with the continued functioning and pushing of proposals for the DAO, which is something which should be addressed soon.

We are Arbitrum.


This is a very timely, sober, pragmatic call for action with details on how to possibly achieve it. That is what need right now ‘Action’ and we cannot act like we are in a vacuum of ancient greek style democratic debates where we can take as long as we want to come up with a perfect ideal system of governance.

This is crypto, we have to experiment, learn and iterate and time here is very fast. Months here are like years and could be a matter of success or death to some ideas, protocols and even chains if we take our sweet time to come up with a perfect system. Competition is fierce and they are not waiting around.

Absolutely delegates need to take more formal responsibility and need to have true zeal, motivation and urgency in seeing Arbitrum succeed, they are not here to just exercise power and decide the fate with just voting. If not why did you even ask for and take the delegate power?

I don’t want to name names but there are some folks with insane amount of delegate power but not even exclusively active or committed to the ecosystem just got the power because the initial claim and delegate process was not optimal or had enough time for careful deliberation in spreading the governance power. It was a mad rush during airdrop claim. I think this is a separate problem we have delegtate power concentration which needs to be addressed for longer term success of the protocol.


Absolutely agreed with this take. Through overly bureaucratic processes Arbitrum (at a stage that is far too early to be considering these measures) is at risk of losing existing protocols and protocols yet to be to chains that will encourage them to develop elsewhere.


Especially governance blackholes that abstain from voting, you literally have one job.


Completely agree with Coinflip. The fact that a comprehensive Framework is lacking doesn’t mean the DAO should stand still. Crypto is an insanely fast moving space and Arbitrum need to react to it.


(Taking my TreasureDAO hat off to chime in on my own accord (insert “all comments/thoughts are my own and not of TreasureDAO’s”). Will also address the ‘elephant in the room’ at the end.)

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with this call to action by @coinflip and the pragmatic guidelines that have been put forth. I’ll also directly admit that others may read this and react in a certain way as it is in some ways at odds with the stance recently put out by Treasure. Will get to that in at the end.

RE: Coinflip’s original post
There’s a real fear of inertia setting in that I know to be shared by many delegates, stakeholders, and community members of Arbitrum DAO. Waiting for the formalization of a framework (or several) and not acting will make it impossible for Arbitrum to meaningfully compete with other ecosystems who are able to move much more swiftly (whether by more centralized design, stage/maturity, culture, etc.). The establishment of any framework also shouldn’t be seen as a silver bullet as everything will be based on its execution at the end of the day — this in itself will take even more time (design, funding, diligence, negotiation, etc.). Despite the significant resources that Arbitrum DAO has access to, the massive advantage that the ecosystem isn’t being tapped into. Pragmatically speaking, bets will need to be made to allow the ecosystem to seize the advantage sitting in our collective laps and continue moving forward, even if mistakes may be made along the way. Marks will be missed and resources will probably be misallocated from time to time but making fast moves while quickly validating / course correcting will be better than opting and waiting for perfection.

RE: Treasure’s position
With Treasure being a DAO with its own lofty mission/goals and a small core contributor team striving to coordinate what is arguably one of the largest communities on Arbitrum with a complex set of stakeholders (game studios, players, other builders and contributors)… all of this is already a difficult, Herculean task. Adding in a significant responsibility and expectation after somehow — and I say this with endless appreciation :pray: — emerging as Arbitrum’s largest delegate has led to this result of a DAO working to figure out how to govern another DAO (DAO2). It’s not easy. In a lot of ways, I’m deeply envious of the individual delegates who are able to voice their opinion and vote on matters without outside input. Reaching what we believe to be consensus within a small team is already difficult, let alone a DAO with hundreds of thousands of members.

With all of this said, it is immensely clear that there’s an incredible responsibility that is rightfully expected of us and we (as the core TreasureDAO council) have been working towards mechanisms that will allow for greater participation, engagement, and leadership from TreasureDAO as one of the leading delegates of Arbitrum DAO. More details to come at Treasure’s next Community Call on this coming Monday (August 14).


Completely agreeing with this, it’s time for DAOs to step up and take control of their own decisions. The space is changing really quickly, so we can’t spend months just talking about what’s good for the system. We need to take action now and the points above capture perfectly what needs to happen for Arbitrum to do well among all the other chains. Instead of just talking about things that don’t really matter, the Arbitrum DAO should focus on things that will actually help it succeed.

Fully onboard with the above!


$DSQ endorses this proposal. :saluting_face:


As an Arbitrum native, I wholeheartedly agree with @coinflip, and the need of the DAO to atleast do something, currently way too many voting power delegated to people that abstain from voting which seem very counterproductive imo.

If we really want to make Arbitrum to keep thriving like it’s currently doing, we need the DAO to take actions and learn from them.

If we delay this too much, builders will go to other chains where there is a more mature framework to get grants and accelerate their growth.

Please let’s not lose the power Arbitrum together with the builders have.


Fully aligned with the proposal.

Time for action is now, nothing good will come from waiting too much, specially when other competitors are actively incentivizing and some others will dangle soon the carrot of “future airdrop”.

Arbitrum could not be in a better position to be the “place to be” after ETH Mainnet, let’s go for it.

Let’s not become the Metamask/Opensea of L2s.



Agreed. I think @coinflip proposal makes a lot of sense and offers a way forward.


ARB has no time to waste - it has to act immediately to regain traction and fuel growth of the failing ecosystem. The DAO should not be impacted by haters and people that try to delay the proposal by dragging it into heated discussion.

Delegates need to come together and make “meaningful decisions” instead of having endless conversation with sit back and relax attitude. Votes should go to delegates that are trying to make impact on ARB ecosystem, not big mouth talkers like some of twitter influencers we all know of.

ARB has wasted great amount of time, it is time to act NOW.


In agreement with @coinflip, the ecosystem and the DAO need to start moving fast, fully in support