Take the accumulated commissions from Nova (now they are automatically transferred, but before the update there was 1,885.79 ETH accumulated there)
Here it is definitely necessary to use these funds and therefore it is necessary to transfer them to the DAO account
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
This is an updated Questbook that can grant up to 50,000.
We already voted for it in Snapshot 2 months ago, since then nothing has changed in this proposal, as well as our justifications
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
We supported the main proposal, and due to the large number of applications for Stylus Sprint, it is proposed to increase the budget from 5 million ARB to 9 million (+4 million)
I think this is a good development for Arbitrum in terms of attracting developers to the new Stylus framework.
Besides, I was initially inclined to a higher budget for main proposal.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
The Farstar team, which is making a venture proposal in Arbitrum, wants to hold events. And only 1 live in Denver.
The rest will be Zoom seminars.
And this does not suit me, because DAO will essentially pay $67k for 1 offline meeting.
This initiative could have been built into the AVI proposal itself, then maybe there would be some sense in it
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
We have already voted to increase the developer grant budget by 4 million in Snapshot.
Unlike many who wrote that it is necessary to additionally give new projects the opportunity to get into the program, I believe that this increase was proposed specifically for projects that had already applied, but simply did not pass the budget. It would be unfair to them to give new projects the opportunity to take into account the priorities of the commission. In addition, the sprint implies rapid development of the program.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
Arbitration update.
All updates correspond to those that will be in Ethereum at the same time.
The most interesting:
Some changes reasonably did not affect Arbitration (but are in Ethereum) due to differences in the operation of chains.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
It seems like a good proposal, but Foundation wants to do it with DAO money, and AF (they have separate funding and quite large - 250 million ARB (Tally | Arbitrum | [Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget)) want to control it. It also turned out that the DAO ADPC committee (which is currently doing these audits) was also preparing its own proposal and tried to coordinate it with AF many times. This means that AF knew and got ahead of ADPC to take control of 10 million for themselves.
AF accused ADPC of the committee’s lack of competence (and AF has all the auditors sitting there) and they did a lot of things for the committee. But they know very well that ADPC hired DeDaub auditors specifically for technical issues (there was a vote (https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xddfa0a249ebf8b1c4c17cb67b4ec1cea69b255815f23a9de35673d8c7d477afc))
ADPC has also made public that AF has never participated in procurement or analysis for audits.
Taking into account these facts and future calls on this matter, I consider this vote to be premature
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
$25 million ARB allocated (in Treasury Management):
Stables: divided into 3 parts (three different managers):
ARB: into 2 parts (also different managers):
The committee itself doubts the ARB strategy, because it can simply lose ARB with a sharp increase in the ARB price.
However, it seems to me that if this happens, this is essentially a conversion of ARB into stables, which will take place at a higher price than the 15 million ARB that will now be transferred to stables and this could potentially be more profitable.
So I voted:
Votes:
Platform: Snapshot
There was already a vote in Snapshot (Telegram), and here is an on-chain confirmation
Since then, no technical changes have happened, so I vote as last time, considering the positive impact of these proposals
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
For beginners in DAO management, a training project is being prepared in Arbitrum.
For 2 months, they will teach the basics of management, voting, decision-making, etc.
Afterwards, they will select the top 10 and give them a stipend of $4,500 each (for 3 months)
Despite the fact that the initiative itself is good, there are several negative aspects:
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Tally
Compared to the previous offer, Snapshot made several concessions, including my comments regarding the composition, to add more members from the DAO, since the DAO pays.
The program itself is standard, as it was about a year ago, with the same budget: 100k for audits for 1 company (total $10 million)
The program is designed for 100 companies over the course of a year. You still need to find so many good ones)
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
Votes:
Platform: Snapshot
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
Of the 6 candidates we nominated and the list of candidates, 5 people/organizations made it through:
So I decided that I would not waste my vote for their participation in order to support the other three candidates I nominated:
Vote:
Platform: Tally
If someone looked at all the applications for the placement of new 35 million ARBs, then he probably spent all his working time on them, because they are very voluminous.
And of course, it is right that they are so detailed, since this is a large amount and a large risk analysis is required for the Arbitration.
However, there are many applications and most delegates cannot devote so much time, for this there is a special committee.
I carefully looked at the final 3 applications that the committee proposed and they inspire confidence and I voted for them, but for the future I would like the committee to justify the following points:
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
I support this proposal as an exception.
Earlier in December, we agreed on a program for funding projects after the hackathon.
As far as I understand, it is AF that is responsible for the fact that it delayed the exchange of ARB tokens for stables for so long, and the drop turned out to be significant.
Projects participating in the hackathon and which should receive their funds for the development of ARbitrum should not suffer from this.
Although it is claimed that additional funds are not needed, in fact, these funds would have been taken from the treasury as soon as they returned from the old program. Therefore, we must consider that we are taking these funds from the treasury and we must treat this accordingly.
At first, it seems that this amount is small, but given that they initially took 252,000 ARB, and now the amount required is $90,000, then in fact, more than doubling the funds for this initiative is required (300,000 ARB)
The second part of the proposal suits me because this committee was created specifically for stables and how else would it deal with the remains of stables?
Vote: Yes to both
Platform: Snapshot