- Proposal: Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: Our decision is to vote FOR this proposal as it adds great value to the DAO by providing clear statistics that stand for transparency, better planning and decision making for everyone involved with the DAO. All of this information definitely facilitates all aspects of decision making and what it conveys and can mean in the future. The requested funds may seem a lot, but we have checked with professionals and the amount sounds reasonable and more than appropriate considering its counterpart, which is the very great value that this proposal aims at. The timeframe and the steps to follow don’t seem strange to us. All in all, we have no reason to oppose this proposal. We believe it will certainly improve the DAO.
- Proposal: ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted in favor of this proposal. Increasing the utility of ARB and combining it with governance is a standout idea that we believe will benefit the growth of the DAO. We consider the proposed budget to be in line with the significant benefits that will be achieved, and we are also looking forward to seeing the results of the tasks carried out by the working group.
- Proposal: Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We continue to support this proposal, as we did in its previous instance on Snapshot. We stand by our previous rationale for funding Entropy. We did not post anything regarding the total amount of requested funds on our previous rationale, but we would like to clarify that we also share some of the concerns that have emerged from the community feedback, but we are also sure that having such a team like Entropy with all their added value to the DAO working exclusively with Arbitrum is a powerful resource to take advantage of, and we understand if this service is expensive after all. We trust that the investment will be well worth it when the results of this proposal come back to the community.
- Proposal: Should the DAO Default to using Shielded Voting for Snapshot Votes?
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For elections only
- Reasoning: We have taken our time in deciding how to vote on this proposal. We see pros and cons in all of the eligible options and so this becomes a thoughtful decision to make. After much thought and debate, we have come to the conclusion that we will vote for “Elections Only” because we believe that this option has more pros than cons than the other given options. We agree that public voting has many drawbacks as noted in the abstract of the proposal, but the abstract itself reflects that “we are not arguing that Arbitrum DAO currently suffers from these effects, but they are each possible with the current public system”, so shielding all votes would be inaccurate at the time of speaking, while shielding for elections only will improve considerably the decision-making rationale behind each vote delegates make.
We would like to thank the Entropy team for coming up with this proposal, which marks our strong decision to support them recently with the proposal to let them work exclusively with Arbitrum DAO. This proposal really reflects their commitment to improve the quality of delegates’ decisions and their justifications for their votes.
We did not vote on all snapshot votes because being able to visualize what the tendency is may help others avoid giving their vote to a proposal that the majority sees as out of step with the DAO or simply malicious to the DAO, and so this non-visualization may help advance a proposal that will end up creating more problems than solutions.
We saw no reason to oppose or abstain from this vote, as we really wanted to show our support for an idea that, if applied well, will bring a lot of benefits to the DAO in general, especially in decision making.
- Proposal: Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System.
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We definitely voted FOR this proposal and appreciate that the delegate incentives will not be interrupted while new discussions on these issues take place. However, we would have appreciated it if what the proposal notes as significant changes had already been introduced in the motivation part of this idea, and also as a milestone point for further debate. Nevertheless, we strongly support this extension, as it has been proven to be effective and to really increase and improve the quality of delegate participation, as intended when the DIP was first introduced. This extension is not that long, so keeping the costs as they are seems reasonable given the still available funds in the multisign created for this purpose.
- Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Off-site
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We are in favor of this proposal because it represents an opportunity to try something new and potentially gain valuable insights from an offsite experience. We have had positive experiences with similar events and therefore fully support the idea of holding this one here too. We will monitor the development of the proposal, as details have not yet been fully discussed. This is an initial assessment to gather delegates’ opinions about working on a project of this nature, particularly given the potential logistical challenges associated with coordinating a global event. We support the initiative and look forward to seeing how it addresses the potential issues that may arise in planning and executing.
- Proposal: An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: Unfortunately, we felt compelled to vote against it at the snapshot stage because this proposal is not properly placed in the forum and does not follow other standard procedures. We see the potential of this motion and how beneficial it is for anyone looking for information about Arbitrum. It really saves time and makes it easier to search for necessary data by having everything in one place. We would like to see this proposal again on Snapshot, but first follow the standard procedures.
- Proposal: Strategic Treasury Management on Arbitrum
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We strongly believe that this proposal and what it aims at is quite necessary in terms of diversification, yet we voted against it because we believe that before adding such a resposability to the karpatkey team, the ASTMG carrier should be selected by the community instead of a single team acting alone to manage it, especially when it comes to an important number of funds. However, we recognize the team’s capabilities and this can be clearly seen in the way they presented their proposal and how detailed it is, but we are still unsure about the lack of options. Centralizing so much money in one organization is dangerous, although the proposal states that the DAO leadership can recall them at any time if something strange is perceived.
- Proposal: Should the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies?
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For “disclosure policy” & “responsible voting policy”
- Reasoning: We are glad to see that this conversation is being revisited, as preventing delegates from voting and not truly representing their delegators due to COI is a real problem. From the comparison shown and what we know from other protocols, there is a real need to improve this issue on Arbitrum. This is also a reason why we strongly support what this proposal aims at. After reviewing the options we came to the conclusion to vote for “Disclosure Policy” and “Responsible Voting Policy”. The two options we have chosen are the ones we believe will add value and reduce problems in the best possible way. We see no reason to be so strict at this moment, but we see the need to have incorporated what we voted for and how much it will mitigate the problems presented. From our POV, these two choices really serve as a medium to professionalize the DAO’s operations, as expected from this proposal, without falling into being so strict. If this becomes a need in the future, we have already discussed the topic and may go in that direction, but for now we stick to what we voted as best practices for now.
- Proposal: Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: 1) Panda Partners, 2) Abstain, 3) Against, 4) Unicorn Partners
- Reasoning: We fully support the benefits this proposal brings to the DAO. As a leading L2 protocol, we recognize that supporting these types of proposals is critical to our community. Our protocol is based on the Ethereum protocol, so it makes sense to be part of the contributors. As stated, if something happens in the Ethereum protocols, it will be reflected in ours. We disagree with those who point out that the very main benefit of this proposal for us is just marketing, when most of what is being clarified has to do with security. And in this sense of the offered packages we went for the Panda Partners choice as our main decision. What it offers is reasonable given the price, although we would like to see this denominated in ARB We did not consider Unicorn because the price seemed excessive.
- Proposal: ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted in favor of this proposal, just as we did in its previous instance on Snapshot. We support the direction it’s taking but have some concerns regarding the working groups (WGs). Compared to the Snapshot stage, there is now more information on WGs, but key details, like the election of WG members, are still missing. The proposal mentions that WGs will be formed via an open call after passing the temp check stage, but we believe the candidates should have been presented earlier for transparency. Despite this, we continue to support the proposal for the value it will bring to the DAO and the token’s utility. We’re excited about the potential revenue within Arbitrum that this motion offers to those who participate in the delegation.
- Proposal: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal, as we did on its previous instance on Snapshot, and maintain our vote for its contingent part, which we also voted for. Since the cost is justified and the security is greatly improved, we see no reason to change what we voted before and continue to support the BOLD AIPs, as well as the decentralization aspect. From our POV, these AIPS provide real long term improvements and sustainability. We see that other delegates agree with us on this and it is good to see some kind of general consensus on this matter.
- Proposal: [Constitutional] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal. As always, we appreciate proposals that improve the security aspects of the DAO. We see the benefit of this delay in the application of constitutional proposals. Of course, we are aware that these proposals take a long time, and this means that they will take a little longer, but it is a good way to prevent possible government attacks on proposals disguised as good ones, and to have time to react against them.
- Proposal: STIP-Bridge Operational Budget
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We support this proposal as it fairly compensates the contributors for their work on the STIP Bridge program. The budget seems reasonable, given the scope of the work.
- Proposal: [Replace Oversight Committee with MSS] Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted in favor of the MSS replacing the Oversight Committee for several important reasons. First, this change significantly reduces the risk associated with having a single point of failure, thereby minimizing the potential for the misuse of funds. Additionally, it ensures that control of the 7 million ARB remains decentralized, staying true to the community’s decisions since the MSS can only operate based on the consensus of multiple trusted parties. Lastly, the MSS offers greater flexibility to adapt to evolving circumstances and includes a clear mechanism for accountability, allowing for the return of funds to the treasury if needed.
- Proposal: Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this republication of the proposal. We see pure benefits from this proposal, which we believe will bring many more voices than we normally have into the governance discussion around the DAO. We see this experiment as a positive solution to avoid centralizing voting power in a small group of delegates. It also guarantees that newcomers have a voice and that they will be taken into account, thus incentivizing them to continue to participate and be active in the DAO. The more voices we have, the better for the interests of the DAO.
- Proposal: Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal to integrate the RARI DAO governance into the Arbitrum ecosystem. We certainly believe that this will bring more participation and growth to the protocol. Also, this sets a precedent for future similar movements from other protocols with the same needs that RARI manifests. We see this as beneficial for both communities, but especially for Arbitrum due to what it means to be so attractive for other protocols to join us, and the visibility and position that this proposed event gives to the DAO.
- Proposal: Fund the Stylus Sprint
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We fully support this proposal, as we have done before with its contingent parts. We are sure that Stylus will be a really big deal for Arbitrum in terms of development and growth. As mentioned before, we believe that it will attract a great community of developers who will add great value to our community. Regarding the funds for its application and sustainability, we have no concerns at all and understand that such a huge project requires a great number of funds. However, this is not a concern for us as we have been following the development of this proposal for a while and everything seems to be running smoothly, also we reaffirm our confidence in the Entropy team as we have indicated on ocassion before. That said, we would like to point out that we see some structural inconsistencies that others have also targeted. We believe this will be fixed for the next iteration, as has happened before after community feedback.
- Proposal: [Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: Consistent with our previous vote on a similar proposal to extend the LTIP, we should vote against this proposal, but instead will vote FOR in this particular instance. While we appreciate the work done and the valid points made by other proponents, in this specific proposal regarding Aave DAO, as we indicated in our comment in the respective RFC, we believe that GHO has a lot of potential and needs to be further customized on Arbitrum. We were part of the vast majority that supported the Incentive Detox proposal because it seems appropriate to pause on these incentives for a while, but we see the potential benefits of supporting this extension.
- Proposal: Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We decided to vote AGAINST this proposal in order to be consistent with what was already approved by the community last month regarding the incentive detox proposal. We understand that problems may arise as described in the abstract, but we must stick to what has already been approved. Unused funds must be returned