Budget for all events for the next year.
Previously, such initiatives were voted on a case-by-case basis and some were not organized due to the long decision-making process.
The amount is not small, $1.5 million.
But for Brussels, for example, $309k was used, and there were 3 such events in six months, as well as an offline event for delegates.
Therefore, although it is a lot, it seems that the amount is adequate to the number of events.
This is an updated system of incentives for delegates codenamed DIP 1.5.
Although I voted for a different incentive option, I accept the majority view that the program needs rapid development and some expertise in terms of evaluating the contribution of the delegate.
The program will last for a year, starting approximately on November 1, when the previous stage of DIP 1.0 ends and we will be able to understand how this program will develop.
Of the candidates I supported at the nomination stage, only one made it.
This is Dedaub
This candidate has an excellent track record in security of various protocols, as well as a good reputation in other related projects such as the Ethereum Foundation and zkSync.
This is an updated program for exchanging tokens with the best projects on Arbitrum.
Based on our comments, the authors removed the fact that projects decide whether to exchange with Arbitrum, and now Arbitrum decides with whom it wants - they chose the top 19 projects, of which the exchange plan is with 3-7 projects.
Now the team needs time within the framework of this program to agree with the projects (if possible) on the exchange amount (up to 0.5 million ARB per project). This is a very small amount, but as a pilot - itâs normal.
I am glad that most of the comments and suggestions for improving the project were accepted and corrected.
This is a continuation of the ARDC v2 committee, which evaluates proposals, protocols, and safety and risk related research.
Previously, their budget was 1.76M ARB, and they returned 1M ARB from the STIP project (but it is not clear to me that these funds would not be returned from the protocols upon the end of the grant period, as stated in the agreement).
The committee is useful for assessing the risks of contract renewals and such things, but this happens infrequently and in a targeted manner, which in my opinion would be cheaper for Arbitrum to request some amount for analysis within each proposal where it is necessary (or a project, like STIP )
Letâs be honest, they took the criticism well and lowered their costs a little on questions, including from me.
However, I think putting people on salary who do not perform permanent duties is the wrong approach. This is an occasional job and unless there are any serious proposals, they will continue to receive a salary.
He was appointed to the council by a temporary group before all the voting, in June.
Now, in essence, it is a confirmation of those who were appointed without voting.
Tim Chang is a venture investor, he received all sorts of awards as the best investor, his main activity was games. He supported many web3 gaming startups.
I consider him a suitable candidate for the GCP council.
Vote: Reconfirm Tim Chang to GCPC
Platform: Snapshot
He was just recently elected in October, internally.
John Kennedy is one of the organizers of Arbitrum Hack Humanity in Denver and Brussels. He worked as a game manager at AWS GameTech, a division of Amazon that provides servers for games.
Although he is heavily involved with games, I would consider the following issues:
he has already participated in the vote and only placed 9th with 1.9 million ARB and there are several people who are higher in the vote than him
I previously voted for Enric Pedro, who placed 6th with 11 million ARB and I think he is more deserving of this spot, given the significantly higher level of support in the previous vote
Vote: Donât confirm John Kennedy
Platform: Snapshot
In Snapshot I was against this committee, even in its first iteration.
And despite the fact that they do a lot of useful things, this work is not needed on a permanent basis, but only with some significant proposals for assessing the risks of updating contracts and other things,
In my opinion, it would be optimal to request for each proposal (requiring analysis) just some amount for analysis.
In principle, the authors answered all the questions on the forum and corrected the proposal.
There are no strict restrictions for delegates, these are mostly wishes, since no one will be specially hired to review everyoneâs behavior.
In general, I do not really understand the need for this, since everyone behaves accordingly and I have not seen any problems with the behavior of delegates so far.
Everything that is written there fits perfectly into the framework of my behavior and understanding of how to conduct a dialogue.
TMC - capital management with a budget of 25 million ARB.
The group will be engaged in the competent distribution of ARB or USDC funds in accordance with the budget among grants. They will convert on time, etc.
GMC - growth management with a budget of 7500 ETH.
Will be engaged in investing funds (75%) from the sequencer somewhere (which are now just lying around). Here, all moves will have to be approved by the community.
The salary of 6 members of both committees is 20,000 USDC for each stage. The first stage is preparatory, the second and third last 3 months. That is, about 7 months. That is, the average salary will be ~ $ 8,500.
I think it is a good initiative, they changed many aspects during 1.5 months of discussions, including mine.
The main point why I am for it is the use of the earned 7500 ETH for the profit of DAO.
There is a slight doubt that the committee members are not elected, but we have 6 months to evaluate their activities. After that, we will decide on the election of committee members.
The point is that there were grants in January, and they received their ARB only a few months later, when ARB fell sharply.
In total, they want Arbitrum to pay almost $20,000 extra for 6 projects.
I am against it for 2 reasons:
No one promised payments in other tokens except ARB. And if ARB had grown 5 times, none of these projects would have said anything and would not have given anything back.
Why then didnât Arbitrum take millions of dollars for all the grants and reimburse everyone, and for some reason these projects are worthy?
Well, if someone doubts the token - let them hedge their risks, why should someone else be responsible for this?
I like that now in addition to the main phase of the hackathon there will also be a continuation. This is good because the competition phase, in fact, was not enough for a full-fledged start-up, and now:
4 best teams will receive $2k per founder per month (max $12k per phase, 3 months) as part of the standard hackathon program.
if everything is ok, then the projects will receive $38k plus support for technical, legal and business processes (phase 2 - 3 months)
I will follow the projects closely
I also support the onchain mechanism:
This is a collab setup to motivate the participants who are given a grant to actively participate, otherwise they will not get anything, in short
Vote: In favour, yes onchain mechanism
Platform: Snapshot
A big study of why developers and projects start building on Arbitrum.
What are its advantages in terms of points of view.
The idea is good.
There are options (the budget is quite adequate for the options):
think only about Arbitrum developers
(38,000$)
research not only Arbitrum, but also why they build on Optimism and Solana.
(58,400$)
Bonus of $20k is bad idea (although I was against it, because I donât know for what result to give a bonus), but ultimately not very big, so
An attempt to make an analysis of processes and good reporting, where all initiatives and reports on DAO management will be shown (where they spent, when and on what)
3-5 people will participate: from the Foundation, delegate, Entropy.
Work for 1 year:
Phase 1 (3 months): analysis of processes, procedures.
Phase 2 (3 months): reduction of expenses on procedures that were studied in Phase 1, as well as reporting
Phase 3 (6 months): continuation of cost reduction and reporting
Cost - $263,260 + bonus 30%
Calculated based on hourly pay of $192,000 per year.
I donât like the following in this proposal:
Bonus. This research and reporting do not increase profits in any way, we can only reduce them. And this is the main task. If we could say in advance that we need to reduce costs by 500,000, and if you reduce more, then here is your bonus. But here we have no clear figures and, accordingly, no bonus can exist here.
Salary based on 192,000. Perhaps I live in some other world where such salaries only exist in movies.
Personally, I think such a salary is too high.
Retroactive $45,000 - in my opinion, this is also a lot.
Okay, you worked on the project, as well as on this proposal, but no one is asking for additional payment for writing the proposal or doing preliminary work for the main work. Everything you did before the budget was approved was solely your initiative. Of course, it is necessary to give retroactive drops for some work, but as the vote on LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections showed, 60% voted against such actions.
Since the issue is only about funding, I would suggest to make the option with a reduced salary.