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 Abstein, I believe that it will be more useful for the Arbitrum to give these projects the opportunity to extend LTIPP
The essence is the transfer of voting tokens to the Arbitrum chain.
In July, the RARI community supported the same proposal, now it is the turn of the Arbitrum DAO.
To transfer tokens, it is necessary to configure the Arbitrum gateway to match L1 RARI with L2 Arbitrum.
An excellent proposal in terms of the possibility of transferring voting from the Mainnet to the Arbitrum, which provides great advantages for most DAO projects in the future.
Creating a fund for developers who will implement their projects on Stylus.
Summary:
A total of 5 million ARB is allocated. Grants will be allocated for projects from 100k to 1 million ARB, depending on the application.
Also, the budget is 150k for the salary for the committee, which will determine and support the projects for 15 months.
And 30k for Questbook, through which applications will come
Timeboost - an auction to buy a time slot for the earliest transaction.
There is an assumption that this way you can transfer profits from MEV to the Treasury. Moreover, in this case, MEV can use strategies that do not harm users due to the closed mempool.
There are several options for extracting profit:
Collect in ETH and put it in the Treasury
Collect in ARB and burn.
It seems to me that collecting in ARB and burning is a bad option. There will not be enough ARB to affect the price of the token - we will simply destroy it without profit
Vote: FOR Collect bids in ETH to treasury
Platform: Snapshot
The voting is happening due to a community error in fact. No one kept track of the fact that the program only included 100,000 ARB, and the applications of candidates were diverse and were not limited by any amounts.
In this regard, I believe that a more logical solution would be to hold the elections again - this way we will be able to set the same conditions for all participants in the elections.
Otherwise, it turns out that the winner can designate any amount as a reward for himself.
Vote:
(1st) New election at $86,581 per year,
(2nd) 6 months from available funds,
(3rd) Additional funds for one year ,
(4th) Liquidation of RWAs and STEP,
(5th) Abstain
Platform: Snapshot
I would like to support this format of communication outside of online.
As I wrote earlier on the forum, in order to attract a lot of people, a good incentive is needed, and this is:
Main event
The largest projects, which also have votes in ArbitrumDAO, often come to such events. Therefore, in this way we attract large projects.
Travel payment
In this way, we will attract enthusiasts who are ready to spend a lot of their time on ArbitrumDAO, but do not have sufficient funds to travel around the world.
Excluding one of these factors reduces the effectiveness of attracting delegates.
Vote:
(1st) IRL/conference/scholarships,
(2nd) IRL/conference/no scholarships,
(3rd) IRL/separate/scholarships,
(4th) IRL/separate/no scholarships,
(5th) Drop idea and do nothing,
(6th) Online event,
(7th) Abstain
cp0x always supports initiatives for the development of ArbitrumDAO and public good.
Request $156k on GovHack (Brussels was $100k more expensive (good breakdown of costs)
Adequate costs for the required organization of the event
The Arbitrum Foundation wants to use 250 million ARB out of 750 initially intended for development and grants.
I didnât like that the proposal doesnât explain anywhere why they need exactly 250 million.
There is no clear strategy for where and how much will be spent.
They donât disclose their current expenses, but only indicate the projects they cooperate with, without specifying the funds.
There is no explanation of how much has already been allocated to them and how much of it has been spent.
Choice of two incentive programs.
I have already written about their pros and cons in the main thread of the proposal, and the main points are:
I am more for objectivity, and v.1.5. is impossible to implement without taking into account specific people who may have their own view on the proposal and the delegate.
In v.1.1 we added a reaction time to the proposal on the forum, which will positively affect the activity of delegates and their commenting.
I nominated 3 active candidates who have been very thorough in the forums, not just on the voting page.
I think these three candidates would be great for the Security Council because of their experience with security and audits.
Continuation of the procurement committee. Their main activity is providing Arbitrum projects with grants for audits, RPC.
They rolled out a report on their work and what will happen in the sequel.
Sponsoring 30ETH at Attackathon
Initially in Snaphot I was against it because I misunderstood the info, then I talked with author and he explained to me about sponsorship.
For â Use ENS txt records
This simply records text at the arbitrumfoundation.eth address, but this is some kind of collective farm. It is not clear why some information is recorded like this
For â Use registration contract
This means that they will make a simple contract for the EIP-4824 factory to record data about the DAO. This will require additional on-chain voting.
Considering that no money is required, I suggest the option
For â Use registration contract
(the same option as a month ago)
As at the Snapshot stage, I did not see a clear plan for the development of the Foundation.
A simple table with potential partners for $100 million does not reveal any information about future spending.
There is no vision of the future, where is it striving? And without a strategy, there is no understanding whether the funds are being spent correctly.
Snapshot voting came to a strange conclusion to hold a delegate gathering online. We are online every day on the forum and in Telegram.
When we understand how to gather offline - then I will vote for
It seems to me that allocating money for online is a bit strange
I only asked for 5k ARB, which means that according to the rules of this retro-funding, the other applicants have 95k ARB left to pay for their contribution.