Proposals: AIP: Building the Future of NFTs: The Rarible Protocol - Arbitrum Integration
Vote: For
Rationale: We are supportive of the proposal to integrate the Rarible Protocol with Arbitrum One. This partnership could be a milestone in Arbitrum’s journey for several compelling reasons: ### Keeping Up with Competitive Dynamics & Nurturing the Developer Ecosystem The landscape for layer-2 solutions is increasingly competitive. Arbitrum must not only maintain its lead but also innovate to attract developer talent. This proposal does precisely that by enriching our NFT development infrastructure, thereby enhancing the overall developer experience. The integration with Rarible offers a suite of tools that could significantly reduce barriers to entry for aspiring NFT developers on Arbitrum. The availability of a robust SDK, indexer, and order book will provide a comprehensive solution for those looking to create and trade NFTs. ### Accelerating NFT Growth Arbitrum currently lags in NFT activity, which is another big segment of the crypto market. The partnership with Rarible will draw more builders to our ecosystem. Rarible’s existing one million monthly active users and large social media following could provide the needed catalyst for this growth, attracting not only new NFT creators but also a larger user base for Arbitrum. ### Financially Sound Decision The proposal requests $100,000 from the Arbitrum DAO treasury, a small percentage compared to the treasury budget. Importantly, the proposal comes with a clear timeline and well-defined deliverables, adding a layer of accountability. This investment seems minor when weighed against the potential benefits of increased developer activity and user growth that could lead to new revenue streams from on-chain transactions. In summary, we strongly believe that this proposal aligns well with Arbitrum’s strategic objectives and will deliver both immediate and long-term value to our community.
Proposals: GovMonth Sensemaking - Growth and Innovation
Vote: For (1st) Statement 2, (2nd) Statement 1, (3rd) Statement 10, (4th) Statement 6, (5th) Statement 7, (6th) Statement 9, (7th) Statement 3, (8th) Statement 4, (9th) Statement 5, (10th) Statement 8
Rationale: We believe these are the important aspects that the DAO should focus on.
Proposals: Proposal: Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST)
Vote: Against
Rationale: Having reviewed the proposal and taking into consideration feedback from other delegates, we are inclined to support this proposal AIP for the following reasons: 1. Education Leading to Adoption: The AIP’s emphasis on designing quests is an interesting approach to both onboarding and education. These structured and immersive quests simplify the complex world of DeFi, making it more accessible to newcomers. By breaking down intricacies into digestible formats, we not only empower users with knowledge but also encourage deeper engagement with the protocols, leading to increased adoption. 2. Upholding Inclusivity and Foster Community Building: The proposal’s deliberate effort to support both STIP-funded projects and those that missed out showcases Arbitrum’s commitment to inclusivity and fairness. By ensuring all deserving projects have an opportunity for visibility and engagement, we’re fostering a strong foundation for a community that thrives on collaboration and mutual growth. 3. Phased Implementation: The proposal strategically segments the quest rollout into distinct stages, ensuring each protocol gets dedicated focus and resources. This approach allows for tailored quest design specific to each protocol, offers an adaptive feedback loop after each phase for continuous improvement, and promotes sustained user engagement. By spreading the releases over time, we keep the community consistently engaged, optimizing both user experience and interaction within the Arbitrum ecosystem. On another note, we think it’s important to address potential concerns to uphold the integrity of our decision-making framework. The notable amount of voting power held by Layer3 and the author of the proposal (@limes) raises questions about our stands against potential conflicts of interest. Their commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem is clear, yet the act of voting on their initiatives deserves better clarity. This is less about questioning motives and more about seeking clarity on our voting ethos within the ArbitrumDAO community. We suggest delving deeper into this matter in another dedicated forum thread, ensuring transparency and a shared understanding.
Proposals: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal
Vote: Against
Rationale: We would like to commend the initiative to recognize and reward the Arbiters for their dedication and hard work. It is evident that these individuals have played a significant role in the development, support, and growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem over the past years. Their contributions in various areas such as translation, promotion, community support, and fraud prevention are commendable and undoubtedly deserve recognition. Points for Consideration However, we believe there are some aspects of this proposal, particularly concerning reward distribution, that need a closer look and potential modification: • Equitable Distribution: The current proposal suggests a flat distribution of 20,000 $ARB tokens to each of the 25 Discord Arbiters. While this approach streamlines the process, it might overlook the nuances of individual contributions. We looked into some of Arbiter Discord activities (Arbiter.xlsx 2), we found out that there’s some noticeable disparities in the engagement and contribution levels among Arbiters. We need a more nuanced distribution strategy that factors in the quality, magnitude, and impact of these contributions. For instance, Arbiter < .fyray>, despite being part of the Arbitrum Discord for a mere 6 months, has showcased more engagement than a member for three years. Such disparities should influence the distribution metrics. • Valuing External Contributions: While the proposal does touch upon contributions outside Discord, it doesn’t delve into their assessment and valuation. Since several Arbiters have excelled Arbitrum through external promotions, events, and content creation, it’s crucial to devise a mechanism that recognizes and rewards these diverse efforts. We need a holistic view that values contributions, both within and outside the Discord community. Benchmarking with other similar initiatives from other DAOs: We looked at similar initiatives, like the Optimism Collective’s reward system for community contributors 3. In contrast to Arbitrum’s uniform rewards, Optimism Collective uses a tiered system, ensuring rewards align with each contributor’s actual contributions and impact. In short, while it’s great to want to reward the Arbiters, the way the rewards are given out needs some tweaking. Ensuring our rewards reflect industry standards and correspond to the effort put in will make this reward approach more equitable. Given the current state of the proposal and the points highlighted, we are inclined to vote against it unless these considerations are addressed.
Proposals: Activate ARB Staking
Vote: Against
Rationale: After thorough analysis and consideration of community feedback, we are voting against the proposed ARB staking mechanism. This decision is informed by a confluence of insights from notable community members, including Michigan Blockchain and SEEDLatam, as well as an analysis of the potential ramifications for the ecosystem. Reflection on Community Insights @Michigan_Blockchain raises valid points regarding the sustainability of the proposed staking rewards and the potential for creating a precedent that may not align with the long-term interests of the Arbitrum ecosystem. The substantial increase in circulating tokens, estimated between 7.8% to 13.7%, could lead to unintended consequences, such as liquidity drain and reduced usage as collateral, which could stifle the ecosystem’s natural growth and health. Core Concerns 1. Liquidity and Collateral Impact: A significant APR might lead to increased outflow of $ARB from exchanges and lending platforms, contrary to our goals of fostering liquidity and utility in the ecosystem. 2. Inflationary Pressures: The proposal introduces a significant inflation rate to fund the staking rewards, which could impact the value of $ARB. Further thorough analysis of its impact on $ARB tokenomics is required before implementation. Impact on Ecosystem Dynamics: An attractive APR for staking may divert funds from other productive uses within the ecosystem, such as providing liquidity or participating in lending markets. This could lead to a contraction in the available liquidity for $ARB, potentially impeding the healthy functioning of the ecosystem. 3. Suboptimal Allocation of Resources: Allocating treasury funds to incentivize token holding does not directly contribute to ecosystem growth in the same way that supporting dapps and user engagement does. The previously supported STIP proposal drove users toward dapp utilization, a more effective use of resources that bolstered ecosystem vitality. 4. The proposed staking model for the Arbitrum DAO, reminiscent of veToken systems, aligns with DeFi protocol governance but raises concerns at the chain level. Such models prioritize long-term holding and governance influence, which, while effective for DeFi, might not be as suitable for a chain-level DAO that requires more dynamic and broad-based governance to adapt to a wider array of network-wide decisions and rapid protocol evolutions. This misalignment could lead to governance inertia or concentrated power, contrary to the more fluid and distributed decision-making that a layer-two solution like Arbitrum might necessitate for its diverse stakeholder base. In conclusion, while incentivizing long-term holding is a noble goal, the proposed staking mechanism is not the optimal path forward. We should seek to provide utility to $ARB in ways that foster organic growth and participation in the ecosystem, and not merely through inflationary incentives.
Proposals: The Arbitrum Coalition
Vote: Fund the Coalition
Rationale: After reviewing the Arbitrum Coalition’s proposal and has decided to vote in favor of it, recognizing its ambition to enhance the DAO’s capacity for research, development, and execution. The coalition’s comprehensive skill set, spearheaded by reputable entities in the crypto space, is poised to bring substantial advancements to the DAO’s operations. However, we do so with an air of caution, as we have some reservations that need to be addressed. Specifically, the analysts’ budget requires more transparency, and we need assurance that the wide scope of the coalition will not conflict with ongoing proposals, such as the one focused on security support. Furthermore, the potential for power capture within the coalition presents a risk that warrants a strategy to provide check and balance for the coalition. By casting our vote in support, we affirm our positive outlook for the coalition’s potential while emphasizing the necessity for these outstanding concerns to be addressed. We believe that with these adjustments, the Arbitrum Coalition will be in an even stronger position to support the DAO’s vision and contribute to a decentralized and thriving future.
Proposals: Non-Constitutional AIP: Arbitrum Security Enhancement Fund
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: proposal withdrawn by authur
Proposals: Consolidate Security Proposals into a RFP Process
Vote: For
Rationale: After reviewing the proposal, Curia will support the implementation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process within the Arbitrum ecosystem, recognizing its strategic importance. It ensures no single organization can create a power capture effect, fostering a healthy, competitive environment that benefits the entire ecosystem. By avoiding organizational power capture, we guarantee innovation and service quality remain high, with various providers contributing diverse perspectives on security.However, we do hold a concern regarding the transparency of the committee process. The effectiveness of the RFP system hinges on the committee’s operations being transparent to maintain trust within the community. There must be clear communication and documentation of decision-making processes to avoid any perception of bias or unfair advantage. Ensuring this transparency will be crucial in upholding the integrity of the RFP process and by extension, the security of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Proposals: Funding Gas Rebate and Trading Competition Program to Amplify Arbitrum’s Ecosystem Growth
Vote: DO NOT FUND
Rationale: Curia will vote DO NOT FUND on this proposal after we’ve reviewed the Rage Trade AIP for a gas rebate and trading incentive program in the Arbitrum ecosystem.We’ve identified concerns that guide our decision. Prematurity and Allocation Concerns: Rage Trade V2’s platform, still in its pre-launch phase, raises concerns about the premature allocation of 1.5 million ARB tokens without a proven track record. We recommend waiting for the platform’s launch and evaluating its actual traction and performances before considering such a significant incentive. STIP Round 2 and Fair Distribution: Engaging in STIP’s Round 2 presents a more equitable opportunity for Rage Trade to seek incentives, aligning with our principles of fairness and balanced resource allocation. This approach not only supports new projects but also ensures fairness for those initiatives that did not receive grants in the first round of STIP, maintaining an inclusive and supportive environment within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Proposals: AIP: ArbOS Version 11
Vote: For
Rationale: Curia fully supports the upcoming upgrade and will vote FOR. We understand that this update will bring our EVM in line with Ethereum’s Shanghai upgrade. It also includes adding and fixing bugs in precompiled contracts, making them more effective for use on Arbitrum. This is a positive development for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Proposals: Timeline Extension for STIP and Backfund Grantees
Vote: Extend deadlines for both STIP and Backfund
Rationale: Thank you @Matt_StableLab and those involved in drafting the proposal. We support this proposal to extend deadlines for both STIP and backfund protocols. We believe that the timeline adjustment is particularly important considering the delays and various processes projects must undergo, such as KYC verification and adjusting distribution plans from the protocols. By providing additional time, it accommodates the operational requirements of the projects, ensuring they have sufficient time to comply with the necessary procedures.
Proposals: Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establish the ‘Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
Vote: (1st) Don’t fund, (2nd) Fund with 880,000 ARB, (3rd) Fund with 1,300,000 ARB, (4th) Fund with 1,715,000 ARB, (5th) Abstain
Rationale: While appreciating the initiative, we are leaning toward voting against it due to concerns about the broad scope of the collective’s services. This decision is grounded in concerns about the potential for influence from the ARDC structure and the extensive scope of services it proposes to offer. While recognizing the need for specialized service providers in the ecosystem, we believe that a more focused and narrower operational, perhaps addressing issues on a case-by-case project, would be more beneficial. Such an approach is likely to foster a more open ecosystem, encouraging diverse contributions and perspectives.
Proposals: Experimental Incentive System for Active ArbitrumDAO Delegates
Vote: Option 1 - Without Karma
Rationale: We are leaning toward supporting Option 1, appreciating its community-driven approach and the nuanced evaluation of delegate contributions it offers. While the automation aspect of Karma in Option 2 is intriguing, we believe it’s too early for full implementation. Given the likely evolution of metrics after the first season, a more adaptable, manual trial is preferable. We suggest using Karma as a benchmarking/data visualization tool in these initial phases, ensuring an additional layer of oversight and accuracy in our processes.
Proposals: [Constitutional] Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process
Vote: For
Rationale: Curia will vote for the proposed changes to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution and Security Council election process. Our support is based on the belief that these amendments will enhance the election system’s fairness and clarity, particularly by introducing a structured timeline for candidate submissions and ensuring candidate authenticity through wallet signature requirements.
Proposals: Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: Curia will vote for the proposed changes to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution and Security Council election process. Our support is based on the belief that these amendments will enhance the election system’s fairness and clarity, particularly by introducing a structured timeline for candidate submissions and ensuring candidate authenticity through wallet signature requirements.
Proposals: Election of Procurement Committee Members (ADPC)
Vote: 1.JOSEPH 2.PABLO 3.PFEDPROG
Rationale: Pavel with tech expertise, Joseph on legal insights, Pablo excels in contract law & procurements.
Proposals: Pilot program Council Elections
Vote: abstain
Rationale: We will be voting in support of Boardroom, JOJO, and SEEDlatam as advisors for the Arbitrum LTI Pilot Program for their respective roles in the Arbitrum LTI Pilot Program. Each candidate brings unique and valuable expertise vital for the program’s success.
Boardroom demonstrates deep engagement with the decentralized governance ecosystem through their governance platform. This platform, instrumental in integrating hundreds of DAOs, showcases Boardroom’s commitment to effective governance and stakeholder engagement, aligning well with Arbitrum’s values.
JOJO, with their extensive knowledge of decentralized finance and governance and their active involvement in DAOs and DeFi protocols (e.g., JonesDAO), provides crucial insights and expertise that are essential for guiding the program in the right direction.
SEEDlatam adds a diverse perspective with their unique insights and active engagement in the Latin American blockchain ecosystem. Their understanding of different market dynamics and community engagement strategies is invaluable for the inclusive growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We believe that the combination of Boardroom’s governance platform experience, JOJO’s deep understanding of DeFi and DAOs, and SEEDlatam’s regional insights will greatly enhance the LTI Pilot Program, benefiting the broader ecosystem.
Regarding the council position, we will abstain from voting as we are also candidates for this role.
Proposals:Pilot Program Advisor Elections
Vote: 1.JOJO 2. SEEDLATAM GOV 3.CASTLE CAPITAL
Rationale: We will be voting in support of Boardroom, JOJO, and SEEDlatam as advisors for the Arbitrum LTI Pilot Program for their respective roles in the Arbitrum LTI Pilot Program. Each candidate brings unique and valuable expertise vital for the program’s success.
Boardroom demonstrates deep engagement with the decentralized governance ecosystem through their governance platform. This platform, instrumental in integrating hundreds of DAOs, showcases Boardroom’s commitment to effective governance and stakeholder engagement, aligning well with Arbitrum’s values.
JOJO, with their extensive knowledge of decentralized finance and governance and their active involvement in DAOs and DeFi protocols (e.g., JonesDAO), provides crucial insights and expertise that are essential for guiding the program in the right direction.
SEEDlatam adds a diverse perspective with their unique insights and active engagement in the Latin American blockchain ecosystem. Their understanding of different market dynamics and community engagement strategies is invaluable for the inclusive growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We believe that the combination of Boardroom’s governance platform experience, JOJO’s deep understanding of DeFi and DAOs, and SEEDlatam’s regional insights will greatly enhance the LTI Pilot Program, benefiting the broader ecosystem.
Regarding the council position, we will abstain from voting as we are also candidates for this role.
Proposals: [UPDATED] Experimental Delegates Incentive System
Vote: For
Rationale: We would like to thank the Seed LATAM team for their dedicated work on this proposal. Their commitment to enhancing our DAO’s governance is commendable. We are leaning toward supporting Option 1, appreciating its community-driven approach and the nuanced evaluation of delegate contributions it offers. While the automation aspect of Karma in Option 2 is intriguing, we believe it’s too early for full implementation. Given the likely evolution of metrics after the first season, a more adaptable, manual trial is preferable. We suggest using Karma as a benchmarking/data visualization tool in these initial phases, ensuring an additional layer of oversight and accuracy in our processes.
Proposals: Proposal to Establish the Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
Vote: Against
Rationale: Old version
Proposals: Long-Term Incentives Pilot Program
Vote: Fund program with 45,815,000
Rationale: Thank you, @Matt_StableLab , and everyone who were involved in drafting this proposal. The initiative to transition from short-term incentive strategies to a more sustainable long-term framework is commendable and aligns with the growing demand and lessons learned from the STIP.
Support for the Proposal:
• Alignment with Previous Success: The pilot program is well-structured to address the shortcomings of STIP Round 1, proposing more efficient mechanisms like a dedicated council and Application Advisors. These improvements are crucial for the effective distribution of incentives.
• Testing New Mechanisms: As a pilot, this program offers a valuable opportunity to test and refine incentive mechanisms, providing essential data to shape the future long-term framework. Areas of Consideration:
• Cost Considerations: The proposed compensation for the election position appears significantly high, particularly for an initial pilot program. We recognize that this proposal was developed during a period when the ARB value was comparatively lower than it is now. Considering the magnitude of the allocated funds, it would be great to have some detail on the basis of this amount justification. Hence, we are leaning toward the lower end of the program funding size.
• Council and Advisor Roles: Diversifying expertise in the council and advisor roles to cover specific sectors like gaming, DeFi, and NFTs could enhance the program’s effectiveness. This specialization would ensure deeper understanding and tailored support across various segments.
Proposals: Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee
Vote: Establish Procurement Committee
Rationale: Thank you, @Immutablelawyer, for your diligent efforts in drafting the proposal to establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee (ADPC). I support this initiative, recognizing its critical role in structuring the procurement process within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The ADPC’s blend of expertise and balanced approach between efficiency and decentralized ethos is commendable. To address the potential for power capture and ensure accountability, I propose the implementation of a community rating system at the end of each program cycle, along with the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or benchmarks for the committee. These measures will not only ensure diverse and inclusive representation but also help in accurately measuring the performance of each committee member. This approach will provide valuable insights and feedback that will benefit future programs, enhancing the effectiveness and impact of the ADPC. With these considerations, I will vote in favor of establishing the ADPC, believing its advantages are significant.
Proposals: AIP: ArbOS 20 “Atlas” - Arbitrum Support for Dencun + Batch Poster Improvements
Vote: For
Rationale: We will support the ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas” proposal driven by its potential to lower transaction costs, ensure compatibility with Ethereum’s upgrades, and introduce operational efficiencies.
Proposals: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0
Vote: For
Rationale: Following further reflection and consideration of insights from @Mysterymen and other delegates, we have decided to change our vote to support this proposal. Our decision is influenced by the recognition that the amount requested by Mysterymen is reasonable and modest compared to the initial proposal. We acknowledge the challenges associated with managing discord scams and the difficulty of engaging with people in discord. The contributions made have been impressive in terms of organization, and the evaluation of such intangible efforts is very challenging. Although we believe that individuals who contribute more significantly should receive greater rewards, since the arbiters are in favor of equal reward distribution, we will support this approach.
Proposals: AIP: Batch Poster Manager and Sequencer Inbox Finality Fix
Vote: For
Rationale: After reviewing the proposal, we will vote in support of this proposal. The introduction of a batch poster to assist and the possibility of changing addresses for the rollup are positive steps toward enhancing the network’s security. This proposal appears to have beneficial impacts with minimal risks. Upon examining the smart contract aspect, we found that it pertains to managing permissions, which presents no concerns. Furthermore, it has undergone an audit by Trail of Bits, a reputable firm in the web3 audit space, assuring us of its integrity and security.
Proposals: Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2
Vote: Against
Rationale: We appreciate the vision and potential of “Into the Dungeons: Machinata’’ and believe it could significantly contribute to the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, after much consideration, @thedevanshmehta has raised a very good point: thedevanshmehta:I think this would reduce the incentive for drafting a more comprehensive ecosystem support program, as teams would prefer applying directly for themselves rather than helping out with governance and creating these structures It’s crucial to develop a clear and comprehensive framework that not only ensures all members have an equal chance to propose projects but also milestones and accountability measures.Hence, we will vote against funding proposals for now.
Proposals: AIP: ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas”
Vote: For
Rationale: We will support the ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas” proposal driven by its potential to lower transaction costs, ensure compatibility with Ethereum’s upgrades, and introduce operational efficiencies.
Proposals: [Non-Constitutional]: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program
Vote: For
Rationale: Thank you @thedevanshmehta , the Working Group, and all community members who contributed their thoughtful feedback on the Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program proposal. We recognize the importance of exploring new strategies for treasury management, especially in such a dynamic and unpredictable market environment. The proactive approach to learning and adapting from this initiative is something we fully support. Our backing of the proposal comes with a keen interest in understanding more about the operational details, particularly how the investment managers will be selected, their strategy for buying and selling assets, and the overall process that will guide these decisions.These details are crucial for ensuring the program’s transparency, efficiency, and alignment with the community’s expectations. As we move forward, we are committed to supporting this proposal, however, our support is also contingent on the clarification and elaboration of the investment management process.
Proposals: Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
Vote: For
Rationale: After considering the proposal and community feedback, We decided to support this proposal due to its potential to significantly enhance the Arbitrum DAO’s governance toolings by making it more accessible, transparent, and user-friendly.
Proposals: Catalyze Arbitrum Gaming: HADOUKEN!
Vote: Press start(FOR)
Rationale: Thank you to everyone for the dedication and effort invested in the Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) proposal. It’s impressive to see how the proposal has changed based on insights shared by the community. We support this proposal, and wanted to underscore the crucial importance of efficiency in its execution. By efficiency, we mean the judicious use of the 200M Arb investment from the DAO, ensuring that every resource allocated to the GCP yields significant value. We are confident that, if executed effectively, this initiative will propel Arbitrum to the forefront of the web 3 gaming industry.
Proposals: [Non-Constitutional AIP] Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime
Vote: For
Rationale: After considering the proposal and community feedback, we’ve decided to support this because it makes the Arbitrum network easier for everyone to use during sequencer downtimes. We see value in creating a simple way and increasing accessibility for users to keep their transactions going even when there are problems. The community has given great input, and some previous prototypes, e.g., UC Berkeley, could potentially help reduce some of the development efforts. We’re also wondering, in terms of security, if there’s anything we should worry about, especially with people entering transactions themselves.
Proposals: Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request
Vote: For
Rationale: We are in favor of supporting the Questbook DDA Program Phase 2, acknowledging their significant past contributions However, we recommend a governance revision, particularly advocating for new elections for domain allocators, to encourage diversity and fresh ideas, avoid power capture, and ensure an equitable and dynamic selection process for those willing to undertake responsibilities. We also agree with @jengajojo on this; however, we believe this position should be re-elected every phase.
Proposals: [Non-Emergency Action] Fix Fee Oversight ArbOS v20 “Atlas”
Vote: 1-SET L1 SURPLUS FEE AND L2 MIN.
Rationale: After reviewing the proposal, we will support reducing the L1 Surplus Fee and L2 Minimum Base Fee. This decision prioritizes improving user experience by lowering transaction costs on the Arbitrum network, ensuring we remain competitive in the Layer 2 space. Lowering these fees is crucial for attracting more users by making transactions more affordable, which can lead to increased network activity. However, we also believe that a research should be done on the fee rate in order to optimize between the sequencer revenue and user experience like @BlockworksResearch suggested.
Proposals: ARDC Risk Member Election
Vote: Elect Chaos Labs
Rationale: For the Risk position, we’ve decided to support Chaos Labs for the position due to their extensive proven track record and expertise in risk management, economic security, mechanism design, and optimization for DeFi protocols. Their commitment to fostering a safe environment aligns with the goal of ADRC.
Proposals: ARDC Security Member Election
Vote: OpenZeppelin 25% Trail of Bits 25% Zellic 25% Nethermind 25%
Rationale: For the Security position, we’ve decided to vote in support for OpenZeppelin, Zellic, Nethermind, and Trail of Bits equally for the security member position within the Arbitrum Research & Development Collective. Given their demonstrated expertise and experience in the web3.0 environment, these candidates are well-suited for the security role within ArbitrumDAO. Their diverse strengths ensure a comprehensive approach to security challenges, aligning with the goals of fostering a secure, innovative, and efficient ecosystem.
Proposals: ARDC DAO Advocate Election
Vote: L2BEAT/ANT FEDERATION 100%
Rationale: For the DAO Advocate position, we’ve decided to support L2BEAT for the DAO Advocate position. Our decision takes into account the strengths and previous contributions of both candidates to the Arbitrum community.Pavel Fedotov has shown impressive technical skills and has been innovative in the blockchain area. His work in developing decentralized technologies and his active role in the Arbitrum ecosystem are truly commendable. Pavel’s dedication and understanding of our community’s needs make him an important asset.However, for the DAO Advocate role specifically, we feel that L2BEAT’s qualifications are a better fit. L2BEAT has a strong background and experience in improving DAO operations. Their reputation as a neutral party and their ability to engage the community effectively are key for managing the DAO’s complex interactions and balancing different viewpoints. We believe their insight into the DAO’s workings make them the preferred choice for this role.
Proposals: ARDC Research Member Election
Vote: Blockworks/Delphi digital 50% and The Blocks 50%
Rationale: For the Research position, we have decided to support both The Block and the collab team of Blockworks Research & Delphi Digital. The Block brings in their strong analytical skills and technical research experiences within the industry. Their proven track record on these researchers give us confidence in their capabilities to assist technical R&D for Arbitrum’s community. Meanwhile, Blockworks Research and Delphi Digital take a team approach to growing the ecosystem and managing it. They bring together their skills and networks to widen the ARDC’s view on getting the community involved, growing the network, and improving governance accessibility. They plan to use their wide reach and key platforms to help promote Arbitrum to attract more users and developers.
Proposals: [Non-constitutional] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge)
Vote: For
Rationale: Firstly, we would like to thank Joe and PluralityLab for thoughtfully considering delegate feedback and presenting a revised proposal. After reviewing both the proposal and PluralityLab’s past contributions, we decided to support this initiative. The proposal’s enhancements and its focus on grant programs are very important for the DAO. We believe advancing this proposal is crucial for attracting more builders to Arbitrum, fostering innovation, and strengthening our ecosystem. Additionally, we think it would be beneficial that the team could provide reports on the performance of projects post-funding. This will make it easier for delegates to evaluate the impact and follow the progress of these grants.