ChamaDao Delegate Communication Thread

[chamadao]

Additional governance activity for the month is summarized here.

We voted FOR the Grants watchdog program:

The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program

We’ve voted in favor of this proposal, which hopefully is deployed to return misused funds back to the DAO. Making the program open to the community should incentivize good actors to find examples of misuse for reporting while discouraging bad actors from misusing funds. However, we think this doesn’t get to the root of the problems with the DAO, which relate much more to general overspending and bad strategy. We also encourage the community to remove the need for such policing by correctly all…

We’ve voted FOR Defining the DAO’s interim Goals.

Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals

We are voting FOR this proposal. The DAO needs strategic direction and hopefully this initiative can work to provide some of this for the community while streamlining operations. We strongly recommend that a focus be put on how best to allocate resources and diminish spending. We will continue to push this agenda in our voting and communications.

We also voted in all of the allocator elections. Votes and rationale are found in the relevant thread:

[Election & Application Thread] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program

Sharing here our votes for the Domain Allocator Election: New Protocols and Ideas - TodayInDeFi: We voted for this good research team who has been putting out dedicated content and is on the front lines of DeFi to have a great perspective on what is working and not. (disclosure: we are subscribers). Dev Tooling on One and Stylus - Juandi: His prior experience is a plus and we think there is a admirable track record of good allocation and positive feedback from other members of the community. E…

We also recently provided feedback on sponsoring ETH Paris, which we are against.

Proposal: Arbitrum Sponsorship at RWA Paris 2025

We are not in support of this proposal. There is already work being done in the DAO from multiple teams on events, which we think is already too much spent on this activity without much clear additional value. We will vote NO on this proposal if it comes up, as in line with our continued stance against wasteful spending.

We continue to encourage the DAO to be selective about how it spends resources.

In line with this, we voted against the Arbitrum Hub proposal, following feedback provided early in the proposal process:

Non-Constitutional: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead

We’re quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven’t particpated in previous rounds of feedback. First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from…