- Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: After serious internal debate, we have come to the conclusion that we will not support this proposal in its current form. We hesitated because all in all it is a very good experiment and has an innovative feature that other proposals do not have. We are not convinced by the 6.5% expense ratio and despite the fact that this proposal is seen as a pilot, we believe that the lock-in period is not sufficient to test its success, as it seems too short. Also, the criteria established for the token swap leaves out many interesting protocols that are not given a chance to participate, even though they count as active delegates in our DAO. In other words, these criteria are quite restrictive, and since this is a pilot, it should be more open to test more and more swapping possibilities. We are willing to change our vote if these concerns are addressed in a next iteration of this proposal, in case it is rebuilt with a more feasible approach.
- Proposal: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: 100% for Funded with 1.73M USDC + Council
- Reasoning: We voted for funding with 1.73M USDC + Council. We see the ARDC contributions so valuable that we are interested in seeing this program continue. We see the structure changing for the better, so we support it. As a team of delegates who joined the DAO last June thanks to the DIP program, we found their deliverables very helpful in making decisions. Now that many more delegates are joining Arbitrum due to the new version of the DIP, we see the continuation of the ARDC as much more valuable and reasonable to exist. However, we would like to point out that we would have appreciated the use of the HATS protocols, which we know well and know how profitable it can be for a project of this kind. We would also like to highlight the inclusion of the Retainer Model. We believe the concept is good, but we would like to see an evaluation of the results of its implementation.
- Proposal: Adopt a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalize Operations
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We are definitely in favor of this proposal because counting with a CoC is much needed considering how much our community is growing and constantly evolving, besides we are happy to see that it takes into account problems that may arise and so counting with it is an efficient way to solve COIs now that clear rules will be stated. Regarding the delegatesā behavior, the CoC helps and contributes to maintain a respectable scenario for everyone who is part of the DAO, so we see no reason for us not to support this proposal.
Regarding the operations part of this motion, we are also in favor of it as it stands, since it is clearly positive for delegates to know in advance the standardized times and criteria the DAO uses for each stage a proposal has to go through.
As for the 6.5 months for the pilot, we feel this is a more than reasonable amount of time to adjust and recalibrate any issues that may arise before it becomes an official part of the constitution.
We look forward to the adoption of this proposal for what it means as a tool for all of us.
- Proposal: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We remain positive about this proposal and therefore voted in favor of it again in the on-chain phase. We maintain the thoughts expressed in our previous rationale. We would like to reiterate that we truly appreciate the thoughtful planning behind this proposal in terms of the time lapse between this idea and the expected start date for its application. We would also like the team in charge of moving this forward to consider a potential event in LATAM, as we also indicated previously.
- Proposal: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We reaffirmed our decision to support this proposal at the on-chain stage. Our thoughts remain the same as expressed in our previous rationale for this proposal. We are comfortable with the team leading the ARDC and the value they have provided to date. As we have indicated before, we look forward to their continuation. We would also like to note that we are very supportive of the structural changes that the ARDC is going through as well as the changes such as the addition of the retainer model. We have very good expectations for this improved version of the ARDC and look forward to continuing to see their results.
- Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: Considering what this proposal means for the DAO in general, and that we saw our feedback addressed in the final proposal that reached Snapshot regarding the disclosure of team members, we reaffirmed our support for this motion. We would also like to mention that the members look suitable for the specified positions and the goals this proposal pursues are definitely needed to be achieved, so the introduction of the milestone payment system according to the delegatesā feedback is another reason why we support this proposal. Regarding the budget that this proposal will eventually require after the implementation of the aforementioned payment system, we believe that 20K USDC per milestone achieved is reasonable, and also considering the tasks that each individual role deals with. Another thing to consider is that while we are still waiting for the OpCo to be set up, having TMC and GCM take on these tasks and look forward to solving key problems the DAO currently faces is a very good way forward.
- Proposal: Restitution For Extensively Delayed ArbitrumDAO Minigrant Winners
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We voted against this reimbursement. We stand by our previous comment on this proposal where we outlined the reasons why we continue to oppose what this proposal seeks to do. While it is true that this sets a bad precedent, we hope that in the future this example shows program managers and teams to be cautious about their responsibilities, the budgets involved, and everything that has to do with running these programs, so that this never happens again. In this sense, we put ourselves in the shoes of the affected builders, but as we have indicated before, we have never seen a proper timeframe for the delivery of compensations, and when it comes to these compensations, we believe that the whole program stated that they were in ARB and not in USDC as expected here (and so this is another reason to oppose).
- Proposal: Hackathon Continuation Program
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For - In favour, no onchain mechanism
- Reasoning: We support this proposal because it fills an important gap where the DAO has failed to keep an eye on it. We have seen this before, when hackathons get carried away, and after they are over, the projects that came out of them, while good, do not move forward. There is a lot of expertise and experience that can be used to guide these projects to achieve their goals. Many times we have seen these projects and teams getting funding but nothing more than that, so supporting them and not just with money after receiving funding is a must and this is something that has not been happening. From the very beginning we indicated our support to this proposal and we continue to do so. Our only difficulty here was to understand the options for the on-chain mechanism as there was no explanation or maybe we missed it, but as the idea is something we support as indicated, we chose the option of no on-chain mechanism. We see that other delegates have also struggled to understand what this means, so we look forward to seeing this properly addressed if this proposal passes and reaches the tally.
- Proposal: [Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum?
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For. Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)
- Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal and chose the option of Arbitrum + 2 others. The main goal of this proposal, as its title suggests, is to understand why we are chosen over others, so limiting the proposal to just Arbitrum seems like the wrong approach, and the result would not have enough impact as it would if we opened it up to make some contrast with other ecosystems. As we anticipated in our comment on this proposal, we would have preferred to leave the choice of other ecosystems open to the community, but we believe that the two options this choice has are more than enough to do good research. All in all, we value the potential outcome of this research, so we decided to support it. In any case, if the proposal is insisted upon, we would like to see this limited choice change, as we believe the community should decide on the other ecosystems, not the proponents of this research.
- Proposal: Designing and operating the reporting and information function
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: Following the development of events we voted against this proposal since it was especified publicly by the authors that it will be reshaped and resubmitted. From our point of view we found the current proposal very hard to read and that led to a lot of misunderstandings so we value what the authors are planning to do since we consider the background idea as a good one for the DAO.
- Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For - Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit)
- Reasoning: We voted to renew this program with 5 domains. We definitely support this renewal because as a program it has provided very valuable results. Another very good aspect of this program that we would like to emphasize is the fact that we can all follow with clarity the destination of the funds, so the projects and their results, the vast majority of them positive. The experience and the positive results obtained from the first 2 seasons make it impossible for us not to support the proposed renovation, which also continues to show a good evolution by adding a modular framework and keeping in mind the needs of the ecosystem, which is why now includes Orbit chains. We are confident that season 3 will be as positive as the previous ones.
- Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We have decided to support this proposal, although we still have some concerns.
We ultimately chose to support it because we see a genuine commitment from the working group behind this motion, as evidenced by the inclusion of a substantial amount of feedback provided by the delegates. Additionally, we appreciate that there are now mechanisms to retain fellows after they have completed their work on the protocol, and we also value the presence of clear key performance indicators that were missing in previous versions of the proposal.
Another reason for our support is that we believe this iteration will yield better results than the previous one due to its focused approach and meritocratic structure, which limits the program to no more than 20 participants. However, we do not consider it a success that only 20% of the participants in V1 ended up becoming active contributors to the DAO. On this point, we were unable to find clear results.
- Proposal: ARDC V2 ELECTIONS (Security, risk, research, & Supervisory Council)
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote:
- Supervisory council: 45% for Frisson (Comm Role), 10% for Entropy Adv. + Tamara (Op Role) , 45% for Pedro Breuer (Comm Role)
- Research: 100% Llama Research & Castle Capital
- Risk: 100% for Nethermind
- Security: 100% for OpenZeppelin
- Reasoning: We want to thank all the applicants who shared their experience, resumes, and talents for all the ARDC positions in this new iteration. Choosing one candidate over another was a significant challenge due to the reasons mentioned above. Our votes went to those we considered the most suitable for each role.
We only split our vote for the Oversight Council because this was where we faced the greatest difficulty in selecting one candidate over another. Frisson, as well as Pedro and Entropy + Tamara, are all well-qualified individuals for these positions. In this case, we prioritized allocating our voting power to the communications role due to the number of applicants.
For those we voted for at 100%, we did so because we know them, either through their experience here on the forum or in other contexts, and we believe they are the best choices for each area. We trust that they will perform their roles appropriately.
- Proposal: Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: As we have said before, we have supported this proposal from the very beginning, and we continue to support it. What this proposal aims to do is truly worthy of our support. We feel it is important to keep promising projects in our DAO, and by providing the support that this program will provide to these projects, this will also act as a hook to attract other builders to come and bet on us. Hackathons are always very valuable and this proposal aims to fill a very important gap that has been neglected.
- Proposal: Treasury Management V1.2
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We reiterate our support for this proposal and maintain our thoughts previously expressed in our communication thread. We also maintain our criticism that the DAO has not had a chance to choose the members who will implement this proposal, yet those appointed have good backgrounds to handle the tasks associated with the roles this proposal involves. We hope that this will change in a next iteration, regardless of the final results, but for now we are willing to give this team a chance. While the OpCo continues to be set up, we value that TMC and GCM will be working on critical issues such as addressing service provider shortfalls or unlocking ARB and ETH utility
- Proposal: Unifying Arbitrumās Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: We are generally in favor of anything clarifying, so we voted FOR this proposal. This proposal is the result and conclusion of a very long discussion around the DAO MVP and the beginning of a highly refined approach that aims to provide clarity to the entire community and ecosystem. Having a clear MVP that applies to the entire DAO is essential, primarily to avoid the ambiguity and inefficiencies that generally result from misunderstandings of each of these terms due to their lack of clarity. We believe that the proposed unification will definitely help the brand by laying the groundwork to grow while maintaining cohesion as we look to the future, be it short, medium, or long term.
- Proposal: OpCo ā A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: For
- Reasoning: After careful consideration, we have decided to support this proposal. We are pleased with the responses we have received to our concerns, which were primarily related to centralization, budget, and application times. We understand the importance behind this legal entity and how much impact and value it can provide. Despite the risks that may arise from its creation and all that goes with it, we see the great potential this entity has for the DAO in terms of efficiency and strategic execution. We are still not entirely comfortable with its duration of 30 months, we think it should be less, but we recognize the great development behind this idea and that having long-term projects is quite beneficial after all, and so we have decided to give this initiative a green light from our side.