Argonaut Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
, ,
82

  • Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections (New Protocols and Ideas, Education, Community Growth, and Events, Dev Tooling on One and Stylus, & Gaming)

  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot

  • Vote:

    • New protocols & Ideas: %50 for Euphoria & %50 for CastleCapital
    • Education, Community Growth, and Events: %100 SeedGov
    • Dev Tooling on One and Stylus: 100% for Andreiv
    • Gaming: Abstain

  • Reasoning: For this season 3, which is about to start, we have decided to vote for the different verticals of this program in the following order:

    → New protocols & Ideas: %50 for Euphoria & %50 for CastleCapital

    Among all the candidates for this domain, we consider both Euphoria and CastleCapital to be the most suitable members for this position. Both of them have our trust as we agree with their opinions most of the time when it comes to a proposal. They have both earned our trust, and so we have expressed it here in this voting instance.

    → Education, Community Growth, and Events: %100 SeedGov

    For this domain we had no doubt that the perfect candidate for us must be SeedGov. Our decision comes from the fact that SeedGov have permanently demonstrated a lot of compromise with the DAO and we know they are experimented enough as to deploy and conduct this domain and everything that concerns to it very well. SeedGov has a truly impressive background so we trust they will not face any problems with the domain responsabilities, besides they have had the experience of being domain allocator on a previous ocasion and so we value this expertise.

    → Dev Tooling on One and Stylus: 100% for Andreiv

    As for this domain, we carefully reviewed the application of each of the candidates and we made our decision to fully support Andreiv. In this particular domain we wanted to choose one and only one candidate, because we think it is more suitable for the position itself to have only one member as the person in charge of it. The three of them have excellent resumes, but we think that Andreiv is the right one for the position.

    → Gaming: Abstain

    In keeping with what has always been our stance for this vertical when it comes to the DAO, we decided not to vote and simply abstained from this vote.

83

  • Proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program

  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot

  • Vote: For

  • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal. We are definitely in favor of this proposal as it means more security. As the DAO continues to grow, the risk of misuse of funds also increases, so the more eyes we have controlling those funds, where they go and what the recipients do with them, the better for everyone in the Arbitrum ecosystem. In this sense, we strongly support that the investigator’s task is rewarded on the one hand, and on the other hand that his/her identity is protected from negative consequences, considering that he/she does not do anything wrong, on the contrary, his/her valuable actions are done for the sake of the DAO. By implementing the proposed mechanism of protecting the identity of those who take action against the misuse of funds, we will not only keep a better eye on the wrongdoing of certain misguided actors, but we will also encourage these investigators or whistleblowers to continue their task without risk by also receiving a well-deserved reward.

    We also approve the wording for the definition of misuse of funds provided by Entropy. It is concise and very precise, it also leaves no room for misinterpretation, which can be used by misaligned actors to act under the protection of a possible false meaning that can be derived from the definition itself.

    Another reason to be in favor of this proposal is the fact that Entropy took into account the feedback we and other delegates provided. The changes that were made before this proposal was put to an off-chain vote are really valuable from our perspective.

84

  • Proposal: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead

  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot

  • Vote: Against

  • Reasoning: We appreciate the work that has been done, but we voted against this proposal as we still have concerns about the ArbitrumHUB project. While some issues have been addressed, we remain skeptical about the required budget and potential content duplication. Despite the budget reduction since the first iteration, we still find it excessive for a project focused on gathering scattered information.

    Many, including us, question the need for this HUB, especially for active DAO participants. While content centralization is helpful, information is already accessible through the Foundation website, forum, or social media with minimal effort.

85
  • Proposal: Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We supported the MVP proposal and therefore voted FOR this proposal. We see the application of these strategic goal sets as a very positive step forward for the DAO. We had some concerns about the possibility of some kind of centralization under the proposed framework, but this concern has now been addressed, as these stand-alone proposals can continue their path outside of this framework. So now that our only concern is gone, we support this proposal and what it means for the DAO. We certainly believe that there should be priorities that need to be addressed in a strategic way, so this approach that is included in this proposal is quite valuable from our perspective.
86
  • Proposal: Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: Our team voted FOR this proposal. This proposal is the logical continuation of the modernization that has taken place in the fee collection structure before, besides there have been progressive and cautious improvements and security audits to get to this point, which is something we really consider as a positive aspect. All actions regarding this subject have been transparent and so is this one, and the potential revenue that will come back to the DAO by no longer having idle funds locked is something we appreciate.
87

  • Proposal: OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution

  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally

  • Vote: For

  • Reasoning: Again, we have carefully reviewed this proposal and have decided to reiterate our support for it. We still have certain concerns regarding the OpCo’s application times (in particular its duration of 30 months), as well as budgetary issues or potential centralization, which we have also indicated before. Despite the existence of these major risks associated with the OpCo initiative, we strongly believe that the potential benefits outweigh these risks. As we have indicated here before, we believe that counting with a legal entity is something that should have been part of the DAO a long time ago, and that this tool will be the solution to quite big internal challenges, such as the gaps that are visible after proposals are approved and executed and no one is there to check them.

    As for the OAT, we trust that the selection process will bring the very best people for these roles, either from within the DAO or outside of it, we trust that this election will bring people who will stand for transparency and professionalism at the same time

88
  • Proposal: Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We have not changed our position regarding our vote in the temperature check, so we have voted in favor again. The first iteration is a proven success in terms of growth and treasury diversification, which has generated returns and a good reputation to maintain, as we also indicated in our previous rationale on this matter. We therefore see no reason to change our opinion.
89

  • Proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot

  • Vote: For

  • Reasoning: Consistent with our previous rationale and our last comment on this proposal, we have decided to support this request for an increase in the Stylus Sprint Committee budget. We have always believed in the potential of this program, and we are pleased to see that our initial thoughts have now been translated into results. It’s exciting to see that the committee received so many applications, and it’s a pity that many great projects couldn’t move forward due to budget constraints. Since we expected this to happen, we have no concerns about how much the original budget is being asked to be increased, as other delegates have indicated, and we understand that this request is for about 80% of the original budget already allocated.

    Stylus makes the difference between Arbitrum and others, so we feel this new funding for the Stylus Sprint is worthwhile.

    We would like to reiterate that we are pleased with several of the applications and trust the selection process that is taking place.

90

  • Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3

  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally

  • Vote: FOR

  • Reasoning: We reiterate our previous rationale and support for this proposal. Our stance on this program remains unchanged, and we believe that since this program has proven to work, it is best to maintain it. Given the strong results achieved in the first two seasons, supporting its continuation is a logical step.

    In addition, we are more than comfortable with the team in charge of running the program, as we have full confidence in their ability to successfully execute this new iteration. This group has a proven positive track record in the DAO, and we are confident that their contributions to this program will continue to enhance the protocol.

    We also support the experimental aspect of this new version, particularly the inclusion of Orbit. From our perspective, this is a worthwhile experiment.

91
  • Proposal: Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: Against
  • Reasoning: While it’s good to continue with the results that AVI has provided so far, we feel that this proposal is rushed since the authors are planning to do the onboarding part of it at ETH Denver and that event is about to start. We do not support proposals that are rushed due to bad timing by the authors. And we also have concerns about the budget being requested, it feels either high for a virtual event and low for an IRL one, and we believe the DAO budget reserved for 2025 events should be used for larger events as other delegates have also indicated. For all these reasons, we voted against.
92
  • Proposal: AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We have voted for this proposal. This was an easy decision to make considering the previous version of ArbOS and how things have evolved, so we trust the Arbitrum devs behind these upgrades. We see no reason to oppose these EIPs and the whole proposal, which aligns well with the upcoming Ethereum Pectra upgrade. It is good to see that we are being proactive by addressing these important changes and acting for the benefit of us all. The more we can keep Etherum aligned, the better.
    By the way, we also support the proposed fix for Stylus, there is nothing strange or worrying to note from our side.
93

  • Proposal: Arbitrum Audit Program

  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot

  • Vote: Against

  • Reasoning: We do not see a reasonable use of such a large amount of funds for such a short period of time, especially considering that this budget is pretty much the same as requested in the OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution proposal, but the time period there is 30 months, not 18 months less as it is here.

    Similar programs already exist in other protocols, and their budgets are significantly smaller than the one needed here to implement the exact same idea. Moreover, is it really necessary to have a new and expensive program when we already have the ADPC Security Subsidy Fund doing exactly the same thing? If so, why? The proposal itself should indicate a need for a replacement. Can’t this program be improved? Why can’t it be?

    Overall, we cannot support this proposal in its current form. We understand that audits stand for security and that security is a priority for the DAO, but preventing us from misusing funds is also a priority.

94
  • Proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We voted FOR this proposal as a consequence of our previous rationale at the Temp Check stage. As we indicated there, we are happy with the way things are going in this program, and so we reaffirm our support. We hope that this request will resolve the budget constraints that have caused many good applications and interesting projects to go unfunded. We have also previously expressed our confidence in the selection process that is taking place, so if these applicants were selected by the selection committee, they should be funded and not set a wrong precedent of not being consistent in our decisions.
95
  • Proposal: TMC Recommendation
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote:
    1. Only deploy stable strategy
    2. Deploy nothing
    3. Abstain
    4. Deploy both strategies
    5. Only Deploy ARB Strategy
  • Reasoning:
    In line with the trust we have placed in TMC in the recent past, as stated in our Treasury Management Rationale (Snapshot & Tally), we have aligned ourselves with their suggestions and our first choice was to “deploy only the stable strategy”, leaving no or little room for the other choices. We appreciate this recommendation as we can clearly see that they are acting in accordance with the tasks they have been entrusted with, which is mainly to protect the DAO treasury. Moreover, as the proposal itself indicates, the TMC remains open to future ARB allocation strategies that are less risky, so it is not a definitive no to this idea. When circumstances improve, especially with respect to the current market conditions that have affected the price of ARB, that will be the right time to move forward with this strategy. We see it as a prudent move not to do this at this moment and only to implement the stablecoin allocation strategy, which at the same time has been evenly split between 3 well trusted selected partners with good reputations both inside and outside the DAO, and even though 2 of them are also part of the part that we are rejecting of this proposal, when it comes to the stablecoin allocation strategies presented we see that the potential benefits outweigh our concerns, unlike what happens with the ARB allocation part of their projects.
96

  • Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep

  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally

  • Vote: For

  • Reasoning: We continue to adhere to our previous rationale in the tempcheck phases regarding timeboost and nova fee sweep.

    Regarding Timeboost, while our rationale dates back to last September and some changes may have occurred since then, we still appreciate the fact that this proposal has gone through a lot of research and development since it started as a forum proposal over a year ago. We trust the work that OCL has done so far. We have reviewed the changes made in the combined proposal that was this proposal’s tempcheck phase, and as we did there, we continue to support it in the onchain phase. Timeboost represents innovation and increased security, two aspects we are always in favor of.

    As for the Nova Fee Sweep part, as we have already indicated, we believe that this modernization process needs to continue on its path, and so we consider it necessary, and again we reiterate that we greatly appreciate the whole development of it, which has been done in a progressive and cautious way, plus security audits in the middle to get to the current status of the proposal. We believe that the proposal will have a potential revenue for the DAO by using the idle funds once and for all.

97
  • Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: Against
  • Reasoning: We have reconsidered our previous vote and have decided to vote AGAINST this proposal. We would like to clarify that we appreciate the changes implemented since Snapshot because, as we indicated in our previous rationale about this proposal, we see a genuine commitment from the working group to make part of the final proposal as much feedback provided by delegates as possible and that’s something we find truly valuable from our side, but also in our previous rationale we had indicated that despite voting for the proposal we still had certain concerns, one of them being the requested budget. We see with very good eyes the team and program updates as well as the curriculum refinement and especially the budget reduction for this new voting instance, but on this last point we still consider the budget to be high considering the DAO benefit we can get from passing this proposal. We do not see enough ROI for the DAO and still consider the cost of each Fellow to be quite high, even though we understand that the proposed training requires funds and resources. If we see a further reduction, we might reconsider supporting the proposal again, as we believe that this new iteration of the program will definitely have better results than V1 due to the refinement in terms of metrics planned for this new version, which we see as more reasonable and affordable than those of the previous version of the program.
98
  • Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: After reviewing the changes implemented since snapshot, we decided to change our previous vote and thus voted FOR this proposal in the onchain vote. We maintain our previously expressed thoughts about the requested budget, which we consider to be too high for such a short period of time, as well as the existence of similar programs in other DAOs and their operation being much cheaper than the expected one here. All in all, we are still of the opinion that there is no reasonable use of funds here and we are afraid that this may affect the $ARB price, as it happened before after the Gaming Catalist proposal, which also requested a huge amount of funds, was passed. However, we had anticipated that we would not be able to support the proposal in its current form, but we do appreciate the changes that have been made in this new version for Tally that provide clarity, more transparency and eligibility criteria, which were also part of our concerns before. We only give the green light to this huge expenditure because we understand the need to have a counting and auditing program to get the most out of the projects we fund, but also because the ADPC has shown their support, although our questions in the previous rationale on this issue remain unanswered.
99
  • Proposal: GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We have voted FOR this proposal. Just as we recently did with the TMC proposal by indicating that we were reaffirming our confidence in them, we would like to do the same and reaffirm our confidence in the GMC. From the very beginning of the Treasury Management v1.2 proposal, we have been aligned with this mindset of trusting these two entities, which have now been internalized into the DAO while the OpCo continues to be set up, and it is good to see that they are fulfilling the responsibilities entrusted to them by the DAO and that they are treating this with the seriousness that the matter requires.
    Unlike the delegates who criticized the non-inclusion of Arbitrum native protocols, we understand the chosen allocations (Lido, Aave, Fluid & Camelot), besides the proposal itself states in its objectives part the why behind these choices and the provided explanation makes a lot of sense since this is the very first use of these funds, so securing high quolity partners from the minute cero is a relief to us. In addition, these strategies are more than appropriate for the low risk profile and approach that the GMC is taking, and in the end, while the return may be low, it is always better than having the funds sit idle and generating nothing.
100
  • Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We see no reason to oppose this proposal, in fact we see a lot of benefits from it, so we voted FOR this integration/registration. On the one hand there are no costs involved, on the other hand there are benefits for the DAO in terms of generating revenue, improving the UX to bring liquidity to the DAO, especially considering that this is a joint proposal with a leading protocol with a strong reputation in the crypto environment and more specifically in the crypto stablecoin markets. The fact that we know very well the aforementioned auditors (ChainSecurity and Cantina, as well as Certora) who have audited and verified this contract and that OCL will work alongside the Sky team for the benefit of both DAOs is really reassuring. This proposal definitely counts with our support and we look forward to seeing how this collaboration develops and the proposal that will result from it.
101