We have voted “none”.
As we mentioned above and as I also explained during the dedicated call, we believe this proposal is not well prepared, and we should go back to the drawing board and discuss it further. Below are our thoughts and comments on individual issues raised in the Snapshot:
- Increase cohort duration - we would be supportive of this point, but only if we are certain that the election process is helping select good candidates. We don’t think this is the case right now, so extending the term without improving the process first could cause more trouble.
- Reduce qualification thresholds - we don’t fully understand the rationale behind this change. Yes, the threshold requirements increase due to unlocks, but the active voting power has been growing lately as well (and it needs to grow further with time anyway to meet the constitutional quorum threshold). Furthermore, progressing security council members would lead to having 6 pre-qualified candidates automatically, and we don’t need much more than that. Especially, that Arbitrum Foundation itself mentioned in the other discussion on that topic that one of the issues with attracting good candidates is that: “We believe that previous candidates who were not elected (some of whom applied multiple times) may have been discouraged from applying again.” We can only select 6 candidates per cohort, so any surplus of good candidates above this threshold is likely to burn out after elections. We want to keep this surplus high enough to have a choice, but low enough not to discourage too many good potential candidates from applying next time. One way of addressing the issue at hand would be to provide some compensation for qualified candidates who were not elected, so that they don’t feel they wasted their time running in the elections. We feel that raising the quorum is not solving anything.
- Progress Security Council members - similarly as with the first point, we would be supportive of this change if we had more trust in the process overall. With the proposed changes, it could be the case that promoting previous security council members without having them go through qualifications could result in reducing their chances of being elected. This is because other candidates will expose themselves during qualifications, and previous members won’t. If even a small portion of delegates just follow their initial choice from qualifications, past members have a lower chance of being elected overall.
- Security Council key rotation - we agree to this change overall, but as explained during the call, we believe this requires some offchain procedure that would ensure (and inform the community) that those key rotations are indeed planned. Right now, the proposal only states that the Foundation will monitor those changes, but does not require public announcements of those changes.
- Changes to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution - as mentioned during the call and in the discussion, we believe that changes in the constitution, even if narrowed down to the security council only, should be considered more broadly.
We will soon join the discussion in the other thread.