Argonaut
Wallet Address or ENS
0x21b3B193B71680E2fAfe40768C03a0Fd305EFa75
Twitter Profile: Argonaut
Tally Profile: Tally Profile
Snapshot Profile: Snapshot
Delegate Statement: Link
This is our very first message, so we want to let everyone know that we have just joined this community. However, we are catching up with the recent votes that have taken place. Before posting our position on various proposals, we would like to clarify that we were not able to vote on the following polls on Snapshot because we did not have the required 50k delegated ARB at the time these polls were posted. Despite not being able to vote on Snapshot, we still voted on Tally.
- Proposal: Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime
- Type: Onchain/Tally
- Deadline: ended Jun 3, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: In spite of not being able to vote on Snapshot when the voting took place there and after getting to know about the proposal itself and made some research on it, we vote FOR. In agreement with the great majority of voters since this is a significant initiative and also that what was reported by the community has been addressed as requested
- Proposal: Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO
- Type: Onchain/Tally
- Deadline: ended Jun 2, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: Although we were not part of this proposal’s Snapshot stage, after reading it all and centering on its benefits we stand in favor of it. M&A opportunities are always something to consider, and as the protocol continues to expand, this is a significant source of growth. In addition, everything will go through a pilot phase first, so that risks are minimized and adjustments can be made in advance over time.
- Proposal: Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum
- Type: Onchain/Tally
- Deadline: ended Jun 7, 2024
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: Regarding this proposal in particular, now that we are familiar with it, we support those who are against it from our own experience. And so do we. We do not see a market opportunity here at the moment, despite the huge possibility that games could contribute to Arbitrum’s growth. The reasons are quite clear and the risk of failure is huge. Nevertheless, as we have joined this community not so long ago, we can clearly see the whole development this matter has had so far from the beginning until today and we are quite aware that this proposal has been passed, so we will trust the people in charge that they will do a good job. We will keep an eye on how this develops.
- Proposal: Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
- Type: Onchain/Tally
- Deadline: ended Jun 9, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: There is general agreement on this proposal, as the indicated changes are in favor of retaining the Stage 1 rollup. Any single proposal that improves the protocol in one way or another will have our support, especially on security issues.
- Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights
- Type: Onchain/Tally
- Deadline: ended Jun 9, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: From what we have read and researched, and also from our very own experience as Software developers, we are pleased to see this proposal from such a protocol moving forward. We are really thankful for the considered retribution no matter how much it is, but the recognizion is esential to what we do. We strongly support this motion
- Proposal: Election of STEP Program Manager
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Deadline: ended Jun 11, 2024
- Vote: 100% for steakhouse
- Reasoning: We voted 100% for Steakhouse because we recognize all the work they have done with DAOs and their valuable contribution to other protocols we are aware of. This is nothing new to us, we have been tracking them from a long time ago to today and we know Steakhouse can be trusted 100%. We considered all other options, but decided to stick with what we consider to be the most reliable choice.
- Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Deadline: ended Jun 11, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted for, without the IRL event. We initially had some concerns about overlapping proposals, but later we realized the distinction with other ongoing programs, and we are pleased with that. For example, we see this proposal as complementary to the M&A proposal, and the fact that they are both ongoing could help develop other issues to be addressed in the future. We believe that they are mutually reinforcing and thus a great benefit to the Arbitrum economy.
As for the IRL event, our position is against it, as we feel that it can be clearly avoided with the same results and less money spent than necessary, especially considering that some IRL events such as ETHCC are about to take place.
- Proposal: AIP: BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Deadline: ended Jun 13, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR because there is no reason to be against such an improvement. As we have said before, we will always be for anything that improves the workflow. This is clearly a step towards more decentralization and security.
- Proposal: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Deadline: ended Jun 13, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal because it is clear that this is a well-planned initiative and we can see this in detail in the proposal itself. The fact that the responsibility falls on the Foundation shows a great commitment to this improvement, which is why we do not see anything strange about the cost, although it is high. We think a breakdown is necessary to provide more clarity on the use of funds.
- Proposal: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Operational cost sentiment
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Deadline: ended Jun 13, 2024
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We stand by our previous vote (bond sentiment) and consequently voted FOR on the operating expenses to bootstrap the first BOLD validator. We have some reservations regarding the defined spending and continue to support our suggestion in our previous rationale.
- Proposal: Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted in favor as soon as this proposal reached Snapshot because we see the idea of incorporating a TBV system to reduce liquidity risks as a good idea for the future of the protocol, and at first glance, we consider it necessary for this purpose.
- Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We voted against this proposal on Snapshot because it clearly looks like a mix of a little bit of everything from other proposals and nothing concrete. Also, it commits the DAO to providing funds for a period of one year, which is quite a long time for such an experimental program, especially when this program requires a lot of money for its operational costs. In addition, we do not see a clear strategy for the DAO to make a return on the money provided. If there is any compensation, we believe that the money will only go to the investors and not to the DAO that provided the capital.
- Proposal: ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We voted against this proposal, even though it is a pretty good initiative. The development of this source really guarantees a better comprenhesion of the DAO and provides assistance to those who are just joining it, and also helps them to remain a part of it. We also see the HUB as an excellent tool for newcomers and non-newcomers alike, but we do not see enough clarity in terms of budget and ways to control this venture over time. Once we see these things redesigned and appropriate, we may change our minds about this
- Proposal: Multisig Support Service (MSS) Elections
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: 25% to PGov , Sinkas, Disruption Joe and Frisson.
- Reasoning: We want to clarify that we consider all the candidates to be excellent. However, in this case, we decided to distribute our votes to only four candidates who are in the recommendations, as we believe that trust and previous work experience are fundamental for this type of position.
- Proposal: Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We missed the off-chain voting since we are brand new here, but considering the whole debate about this proposal and what it mainly means (growth and innovation) we voted FOR on the on-chain poll.
- Proposal: Approval of STEP committee recommendations
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal. We can clearly see that it has had such a long development and that things are moving forward as expected. We can also relate that this is quite important for the treasury, despite being experimental, which is why we appreciate its development from the very beginning to this point where we are now. Also, the amounts seem reasonable and we trust that the diversification of the treasury will end up with good results, as we trust the committee that made these recommendations.
1 Like
-
Proposal: Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations
-
Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
-
Vote:
#1 - Improving predictability
#2 - Predicatibility approval process
#3 - Against
#4 - Abstain -
Reasoning: We decided to prioritize the option “Improving predictability.” In a growing community like this one, having consistent criteria as proposed in this motion provides transparency and efficiency. This will help deliver valuable responses and reduce delegate fatigue, which we have experienced as newcomers to the community. We see the benefit of what this proposal offers in terms of organization and better planning for delegates to follow up on different topics simultaneously.
We put the approval process in second place because we think it is valuable, but we also think it needs further discussion.
- Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] - Subsidy Fund Proposal from the ADPC
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal. We missed the vote on the preliminary review, but we have followed its development by reviewing it from its inception to the present. It is clear that the concerns raised by community feedback have been addressed. Not only have these concerns been addressed, but this is something that is really necessary for new projects to succeed and be supported. These new projects can bring innovation and growth to the protocol, and we appreciate that. But the most important detail is that the security aspect has been a central issue around this proposal and the considerations around it have been clarified. Let us not forget that this has gone through a pilot phase and the testing has yielded good results.
- Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We will continue to monitor the progress of this proposal and address any further developments as we have done previously. The concerns previously raised by us and other individuals have been addressed, which reinforces our confidence in supporting this initiative. The team demonstrated responsiveness to community concerns regarding the IRL event by removing it. With regard to the remainder of the proposal, we continue to perceive its benefits, which is why we have decided to align with our previous vote and cast FOR once again.
- Proposal: Pilot for a Questbook Jumpstart fund for problem definition and DAO improvement
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot
Just by reading the abstract, we already have the feeling that this idea is missing important information that should be clear for others to evaluate the proposal. Such details are, for example, asking for funds when there is not enough clarity on where these funds will go, and this feels more like a solution to a problem that has not yet appeared and may never do so. Another important aspect to consider is the part of this proposal that asks delegates to be proactive rather than reactive. While being proactive is a good thing, this calls for huge changes in the way delegates manifest their decisions for or against proposals, and so changing so much for so little does not seem right. Finally, we believe that the proposed timeline is far too long for a program of this nature.
- Proposal: Furucombo’s Misuse of Funds
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR on this proposal. This incident cannot occur ever again. As descripted in the initial moment of this whole matter, other projects were contacted privately and non used funds were returned as previously agreed. However, the fact that Furucombo is the only project that did not comply leaves negative indications that should not be tolerated in the Arbitrum DAO. Overall, there are many reasons to support the ban of Furucombo from the Arbitrum DAO and to set a precedent to prevent the DAO from facing a similar situation in the future.
-
Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
-
Vote:
→ CoinflipCanada (Gov exp) 33,3%
→ David Bolger (Growth / BD Exp) 33,3%
→ Greg Canessa (Ops Exp) 33,3% -
Reasoning:
We first would like to thank all candidates who submitted their applications. After reviewing and internal debating we made our decision of splitting our vote in equals parts for the following nominees:- CoinflipCanada (Gov exp)
- David Bolger (Growth / BD Exp)
- Greg Canessa (Ops Exp)
Though it was possible to vote for two members of one domain and/or no members for another domain, we decided to split our suffrage into the 3 different domains which we consider to be the most suitables for counseling positions.
In the governance field we made our decision to support CoinflipCanada given his extense commitment to the DAO and everything he has demonstrated regarding strong skills at overseeing DAO operations and ensuring transparency.
In the growth and BD domain we chose David Bolger considering he is the Gaming Partnerships Lead at Offchain Labs and what this means into Arbitrum’s ecosystem. His proven experience at understanding the gaming sector and capabilities to integrate technological advancements makes him a real good option to handle this area
By last, for the operations domain we decided to vote for Greg Canessa due to his bast experience with gaming projects. This experience should be consider to avoid misleading paths into this field and he could really help here in order to get the program running smoothly and efficiently.
- Proposal: Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For - fund Entropy
- Reasoning: We voted to fund Entropy because they have truly earned our trust and proven themselves to be reliable in the short time they have participated in the DAO. In addition, every single proposal they have implemented has been quite valuable, tackling different problems and offering effective solutions or improvements to make the DAO better. Considering this efficiency they show with their actions and their readiness to listen to the community, we would like to give them a chance with this proposal.
- Proposal: Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For - Any blockchain network
- Reasoning: We voted in favor of this proposal. There are very good benefits such as the potential income to be obtained and the possibility of Arbitrum increasing its presence in many other ecosystems, which we should not overlook. We also understand the concerns raised by the community regarding alignment with ETH, however, we believe this alignment will not be lost by modifying the expansion program, as we understand that this action will not reduce the value contribution to ETH.
- Proposal: [Non-constitutional] Incentives Detox Proposal
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We are voting in favor of this proposal because it has become clear that some incentives have not delivered the expected results, creating a real need to pause and rethink these programs. The idea of reorganization through working groups to get the best out of all the information gathered is 100% valuable to us because it’s a concept we’ve seen that has worked in other protocols and has resulted in best practices. We see that there is a lot of information from which to start analyzing and making improvements, and considering the three-month timeframe, it is certain to result in improvements for future incentive programs. Lastly, we understand that all programs need to evolve with time and experience, which is why we view positively the possibility of repeating this stage to reassess results once again.
- Proposal: Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted in favor of this proposal and participated in the committee election, so we see prosperity in this proposal. We conclude that the MSS proposal is a quite significant solution to an existing problem involving delays and expenses. This solution really attempts to address these issues and save costs, but not only that, it also aims to improve transparency due to the fact that the elected committee members are notable participants with a lot of involvement in the DAO.
- Proposal: [Constitutional] ArbOS 31 “Bianca” (Stylus, RIP-7212 Support, Nova Fee Router)
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We are in support of all three AIPs that have been combined into one proposal. In all cases, we believe the proposed changes will result in significant improvements that will benefit Arbitrum. Regarding the stylus, the fact that it supports Rust or C++ brings innovation and expansion to a new community of developers. Regarding Rip-7212, incorporating passkeys has been shown to significantly enhance the user experience, making Arbitrum more accessible and user-friendly. Additionally, the proposed changes to Nova Fee Router will streamline governance and accelerate the deployment of funds when needed. We believe these improvements will greatly benefit Arbitrum and are in line with our vision for its future.
- Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We would have loved to vote in favor of this proposal, as others have pointed out. We recognize the expertise of Curia Lab and how valuable this proposal could be, but we see a potential risk of overlap with other initiatives, and in that sense, we prefer to leave this for the future. We also understand that this proposal aims to fill gaps in existing platforms, however, we believe that the use of Karma has worked well with the DAO. For these reasons, we are voting against it this time.