It is necessary to evaluate the results and find out what goals we want to achieve, what can be improved, etc., so the proposal is to suspend all grants that end in September for 3 months.
On the one hand, this is a useful proposal, but there is already a group ARDC that has been doing this work for several months. However, they did not report any results of their work (they said that they would come later). Due to the lack of results, I am inclined to vote for this proposal.
Curia Lab wants to make some kind of dashboard like Optimism (Participation | Optimism Governance Dashboard by Curia):
Info like: how many active votes, delegates, percentage of participation in voting, etc. A total of about 5 real parameters.
But it costs $50k. Of which $10k for 6 months of servicing this dashboard.
I’m not sure that this is really necessary, but for that kind of money we need to try - maybe it will give some hint in the future where DAO is going.
On the one hand, it is an interesting initiative that gives everyone the opportunity to vote regardless of the assessment of other delegates. This is very important.
On the other hand, if there is some kind of mindless voting, then there is no way to understand whether everyone needs to be persuaded to vote by turning on their brains.
Therefore, I can agree on the middle ground, which I proposed on the forum: voting is for some positions, not for all proposals.
It’s a good idea to write DAO information to daoURI,
although there are doubts about the specific data, the order of their entry and the financing of this activity.
On the one hand, it’s a good initiative, the treasury needs to work somehow.
On the other hand, 2.5 million ARB for this is a bit too much, especially considering that the karpatkey’s fee in ENS DAO is 0.5%.
In addition, I believe that such management must have an incentive in the form of a percentage of the profit from the invested funds, otherwise the company will not do anything to make a profit.
Conflicts of interest in crypto cannot be physically limited, so it is strange to make restrictions on something you cannot influence.
Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to make only those decisions that everyone will implement voluntarily.
This was exactly my proposal in the comments to the proposal.
We try to support initiatives related to sponsoring events related to public good.
However, in this proposal, Arbitrum is a secondary representative - the main goal of the event is to protect Ethereum, not Arbitrum.
That’s why we chose exactly this sequence for voting.
We previously voted for this proposal in Snapshot.
We consistently support the Arbitrum security update and for this it is necessary to create a trusted validator (temporarily)
These funds will not be lost and hopefully will soon return to the treasury
A long-awaited proposal.
I believe that this is one of the most important decisions in the entire development of Arbirum and DAO in general.
Firstly, it can stabilize the price of the ARB token. And secondly, it will increase involvement in voting due to the mandatory delegation.
Another dashboard for L3 chains.
It seems like a good idea, but they are asking for $210k. For some jobs, it turns out that an hour of work reaches $500/hour.
Secondly, what I don’t like is that the cost of work for the first chain is no different from others, for which everything needs to be done similarly and at significantly lower costs.
In general, the financial side does not suit me, but the idea itself is fine.
Increasing TimeLock for on-chain voting from 3 to 8 days. The main reason is that it will take more than 7 days for users to withdraw funds if they are against the changes.
Overall, this will not worsen security, so this is a positive change.
However, it is unlikely to greatly affect the ability of users to withdraw their funds, since few people follow the changes inside Arbitrum.
This is the budget distribution for its participants - experts and managers and multisig, who participated in STIP-Bridge.
Initially, 100k ARB were included in the budget for this, so no additional funds are required - everything is within the budget.
Just for clarity, they write who will receive how much. I even think that they will receive less than they planned due to the reduction in the cost of ARB, but this is already a common issue for all program budget operations on Arbitrum rn.
The point is that they want to apply the new MSS (multisig for all programs in the Arbitration) including for signing in the Voter Enfranchisement Pool initiative — Event Horizon.
Despite the fact that I am against the Event Horizon initiative itself, this proposal in itself has a positive effect on decisions in the Arbitration DAO as a unified solution.
I initially had great doubts about the creation of this committee, but as its powers and responsibilities developed, it became clearer to me why this committee was needed.
I still have doubts about the $8,000 salary budget for the members of this committee, I think it is too high based on the volume of current work.
But overall, the initiative is useful for Arbitrum and their projects.
This proposal, like several similar ones for extending LTIPP, has both pros and cons.
Cons:
The DAO Arbitrum voted for Detox programs to assess their effectiveness and necessity.
in case of extending grants, this project will have an advantage over its competitor
Pros:
there are objective reasons why the project did not manage to spend all the allocated funds from the grant
no additional funding is required
Having weighed all the pros and cons, and in order not to remain Abstain, I believe that it will be more useful for the Arbitrum to give these projects the opportunity to extend LTIPP
This proposal, like several similar ones for extending LTIPP, has both pros and cons.
Cons:
The DAO Arbitrum voted for Detox programs to assess their effectiveness and necessity.
in case of extending grants, this project will have an advantage over its competitor
Pros:
there are objective reasons why the project did not manage to spend all the allocated funds from the grant
no additional funding is required
Having weighed all the pros and cons, and in order not to remain Abstain, I believe that it will be more useful for the Arbitrum to give these projects the opportunity to extend LTIPP