Proposal: An EIP-4834 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO
Vote: FOR
Type: Off-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to establish a daoURI for Arbitrum DAO. A daoURI will essentially store metadata about the DAO and serve as a public source of truth for all DAO-related information. The daoURI will follow the EIP-4824 metadata standard which currently enjoys widespread adoption from other major protocols and DAOs. Implementing this solution for Arbitrum DAO could potentially improve accessibility and transparency on DAO activities, and the fact that the implementation would be coming at no cost to the DAO is a plus. We will therefore be voting in support of this proposal.
Proposal: UPDATED - Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to allocate 30 ETH to sponsor Attackathon, an event targeted at securing the Ethereum network through education, and security audits. As an ethereum-aligned ecosystem, we believe it is important for Arbitrum DAO to contribute to initiatives aimed at improving the security of the Ethereum network which Arbitrum leverages upon. We are voting in support of this proposal.
Proposal: Constitutional AIP - Extend Delay on L2Time Lock
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to extend Arbitrum’s L2 core timelock delay period from 3 days to 8 days. As far as DAO defence mechanisms go, there are little to no downsides to delaying the period between the passing of a vote and its execution, which is what this proposal seeks to do. For proposals that seek to alter and introduce changes to core protocol parameters, an execution delay period is necessary to ensure that the DAO can take remediating actions against malicious proposals before they are executed. One potential disadvantage though, of an extended delay period, is that making protocol updates will become slower and (theoretically) this can put the protocol at a strategic disadvantage when time is of the essence. However, this seems far-fetched and unlikely, and even so, is a minor setback that is significantly outweighed by the added security that a longer delay period provides. In addition to extending the core timelock, it might be worth it for the DAO to consider extending the treasury timelock, and contemplate other DAO defence mechanisms as well. As we believe this proposal improves the overall security of the DAO, we will be voting in support of it.
Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: We previously voted in support of this proposal during the off-chain vote (see our Rationale here). Our position remains unchanged, although we are still emphasising on the need for more transparency and detailed insights from the Arbitrum Foundation around the utilisation of the budget.
Proposal: ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: We previously expressed support for this proposal in the off-chain vote:
Although we would have preferred it to be an IRL event as opposed to an online one (as voted by the DAO), we will still be voting in support of the on-chain proposal. Given the cost this creates for people involved in the online offsite, we do hope for top facilitation and tangible value to come out of this.
Proposal: Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to migrate the RARI token contract and governance from the Ethereum mainnet to Arbitrum. We are particularly excited about this proposal because it projects Arbitrum as a preferred L2 solution for cheaper and scalable transactions. We hope to see more of such migrations and similar developments for Arbitrum in the future. Worth noting that this proposal comes at no cost to the DAO. We will therefore be voting in support.
Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: We supported this proposal during the snapshot vote, and our view has remain unchanged. We will therefore be voting in support of the on-chain proposal.
Proposal: Fund the Stylus Sprint
Vote: FOR
Type: On-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to allocate 5,330,000 ARB towards providing grants for projects building with Arbitrum Stylus. We earlier expressed our support for the ArbOS 31 “Bianca” upgrade proposal which activated the Arbitrum Stylus upgrade.
We believed then that Arbitrum Stylus was valuable for improving inclusion, accessibility and growth for the Arbitrum ecosystem, and we still maintain this view now. By providing grants, this proposal will incentivise projects to build with Stylus, further reinforcing the impact of the upgrade. We view this as a positive add-on, and will therefore be voting in support.
Proposal: GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for John Kennedy and Tim Chang
Vote: FOR
Type: Off-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to reconfirm the election of John Kennedy as a member of the Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) Council. We are voting in support of this proposal as we believe both John Kennedy and Tim Chang possess the relevant background for GCP Council membership. However, from a procedural standpoint, if the DAO ultimately has the responsibility reconfirming selected council members, it makes more sense for them to be directly elected by the DAO from the onset. In a situation where the DAO refuses to reconfirm a candidate, it means that the DAO will have to go through several reconfirmation processes for several candidates brought before it, until it settles on a preferred one. Although this is an unlikely possibility, it cannot possibly arise where the DAO is doing the election from the onset rather than a “reconfirmation”.
Proposal: (v2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
Vote: FOR
Type: Off-chain
Rationale: This proposal seeks to extend and fund the Arbitrum Research and Development Council (ARDC) for an additional six month term. We believe that the ARDC has proved its usefulness to the DAO during its first term, providing 40+ high quality research materials on DAO proposals and initiatives. It makes sense for the ARDC to continue its mandate. We are voting in support of the option for 1.73M USDC in funding and not a higher budget as we believe that it represents a reasonable cap for scope of deliverables without compromising on quality. Moreover, we believe that the Supervisory Council has already introduced an added layer of cost, which is in our view not adequately justified by the proposal as it fails to disclose why the DAO Advocate role could not be elevated to take on its function. Nevertheless, we are generally aligned with the proposal and will be voting in support.