[Constitutional] Increase resilience to outside attackers by updating DAO parameters to not count 'Abstain' votes in Quorum.

[Vertex_Protocol]

@cupojoseph

not sure why everyone is having the same misunderstanding. it looks like all these replies are AI generated slop trying to farm future airdrop or delegate rewards by having participation? I dont get it.

Separately, this is frustrating but it’s not the first time it’s happened. This proposal comes to mind for us Proposal for Financial Restitution For ArbitrumDAO Grant Winners. The problem wasn’t that the token price had changed in a vacuum, but that there was such a delay in payment.

@Bob-Rossi

I’ve now personally (and I say this as I’d imagine this is affecting a lot of people if it’s affected myself 3 times already…) experienced 3 instances where some combination of the KYC process / project manager process has delayed getting me funds at the promised time. To the point I’d argue it’s at a detriment to Arbitrum / the DAO’s reputation. So as someone being paid in tokens I’m fully aware of the price fluctuation risks, but I do have to push back on the notion expressed by others that these entities should have accepted that there was currency risk here. The currency risk is acceptable IMO when it’s a situation of doing the work in January, but knowing you won’t be paid until February. However, the currency risk is NOT acceptable IMO if it’s a situation of where you do the work in January, are promised to be paid in February, but don’t get paid until March.

the same problems from then are the same problems we have now.

@tamara

but now as a result of the delays the ARDC team is currently sweating, praying to market gods that the allocated ARB will cover the full budget