Hope the team consider a couple my points in their future report:
Vote: For [No IRL Event]
Platform: Snapshot
I support this security improvement update:
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
I support the formation of the first BoLD validator.
Treasury has enough funds to it and there is an opportunity to return the funds back later.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
It is required to allocate 900 ETH from the treasury:
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
I don’t see any advantage to this solution.
There are already many landing projects, and also the costs of borrowing are too high for stables.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
The proposal would reduce maintenance costs, which account for up to 50% of grants.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
The calculation model requires 2.4 million ARB, but the request is only for 1.9 million ARB.
In this regard, there is no way to understand exactly how rewards will be distributed.
Even after this question the team of this project did not recalculate costs.
The second reason - fee of the project is compensated - 80% in the amount of $816,000.
All this money goes to the team, but not to the common users of the product.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Tally
I have carefully reviewed all 40 applications submitted for the multisig position.
There are a lot of worthy candidates, but in order not to dilute my vote among many candidates,
I chose JoJo, who votes in most cases reasonably and reasonably, often coinciding with me in opinions.
This means that he votes responsibly, which is very important in this position.
Vote: FOR JoJo
Platform: Snapshot
I believe, as I previously wrote on the forum, that 500k ARB is too much money to develop and maintain a site for just six months.
I could agree to such a budget only for specific tasks (which can be assessed and calculated objectively) for 2-3 years, no less.
I don’t agree that Arbitrum has so much money that you can make any requests and get everything
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
The team did a good analysis and chose a few companies to diversify into that are credible.
We need diversification in RWA
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
I think it’s a great idea to systematize voting in the Arbitrum.
However, the second part of the sentence seems unnecessary to me. Adding bureaucracy is too much for such a large community.
Since we are going to follow these rules ourselves, without any coercion, it is necessary to leave only the part that improves the voting process and does not complicate it.
Vote: FOR 1. Improving Predictability
Platform: Snapshot
This money goes towards subsidies for audits for projects on Arbitrum, so I fully support this initiative.
Audits are one of the most important stages of project development. The fewer hacks there are in our ecosystem, the more trust and participants there will be.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
As with the Snapshot voting phase, we support this proposal.
A good indicator is reducing the budget from $99k to $87k.
I hope that the team will also consider the option of simply investing in venture capital companies, which may be more profitable than reinventing the wheel themselves
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
Initially I had a lot of doubts about this proposal. It sounded like we need to get together, come up with a problem and then solve it.
After a little discussion with Danielo, I became more favorable to this proposal, but it still needs to be reworked.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
There were a lot of good applications for this position.
It’s good that the team divided them into categories, but it’s strange that there is not room for all categories: there are only 3 places, and 5 categories.
Therefore, we had to choose only the best, although there were a lot of good candidates:
Greg Canessa
Worked at XBox, Google Games, Blizzard. In short, he clearly knows what to do, although he has not worked with web3.
Operations / Games Expert Group
Enric Pedro
Experience 15 years, including top 1 mobile game SpongeBob in Google and Apple.
Player Engagement Expert Group
Votes:
50% FOR Greg Canessa
50% FOR Enric Pedro
Platform: Snapshot
I believe that consulting DAO without any guarantees and KPI should not cost that much money.
$2.5 million is too much for several experts.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
There have been talks about this team for a long time that they do not pay rewards to their users, so it is obvious that such projects need to be banned.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
This is a great opportunity for Arbitrum to occupy the chain market, which can bring good profit to DAO in the future to implement all the ideas of the community.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
This change is an update: updated two addresses in contracts and made several optimizations.
Code verified by OpenZeppelin.
The rest is the same as in ArbOS 30, which we already voted for.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
This proposal consists of creating a multisig service for 6 Arbitrum projects:
A good proposal for saving money
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally