It is great to see some progession.
Whilst I am aligned with the need for incentives and that a framework is required, I do have several questions that I would like clarified before proceeding to support this specific proposal.
Compensation
I have been following discussions, but due to time-zones and family commitments I have been unable to attend all the working group calls and chats. From what I understand, it was a collective effort from multiple people, delegates, and protocols, so it would be great @tnorm if you could detail how you came to the 20,000 ARB number for just yourself? Since the framework itself was the product of various group discussions, I assume the main thing you single-handedly worked on was writing it and some co-ordination around this? Whilst these efforts are great, I struggle to come to the same conclusion that it deserves 20,000 ARB for 3 weeks work, especially when it’s only for you.
Multisig
Please could you provide more clarity on the multisig? The only info provided is that plurality labs are being compensated for this. Does this mean they are the sole signers of $75m worth of ARB? This seems a slight conflict of interest, and I would expect significantly broader reassurances on a multisig for this size. Who is on it, what are their roles, are they publicly KYCed etc?
Success of the framework and what that means after the initial 4 month period
I do not think that 75m is too big or too small, but I am simply unsure of how to understand it’s size in the context of Arbitrum. Please could the working group or @tnorm detail how you came to this conclusion? Did you have any feedback from protocols on what size proposals they would be requesting?
Does this also mean that every proposal within the framework is only 4 months long?
How will the framework be measured in terms of being effective? What data is being laid out to do this?
Review process and KPIs
This section appears quite vague and high-level. I understand that they are meant to be guides that protocols pick and choose rather than requirements, but it seems somewhat lacking for a framework of this size. The review process leaves me feeling the same, at what point does something not pass through the review stage? What if no delegates are involved here?
Is it possible to not get through the review stage? What is actually required here?
.
In conclusion, I am pleased to see a step in the right direction, but given that this is a vague framework that still ends in delegates voting for individual protocols, I would require further clarity on it’s efficacy in order to support it. Especially regarding the review process, the compensation, the multisig, and finally how to measure the proposal as successful. I personally do not think it will pass in its current form.