Proposal: Activate ARB Staking
Voted: Against & Lowest Amount
Rationale: Funding initiatives that drive user engagement, and directly contribute to ecosystem growth will be a better way to manage the funds requested for the staking rewards
Proposal: Non-Constitutional AIP: Arbitrum Security Enhancement Fund
Voted: Against
Rationale: Was discontinued with talks about the procurement framework in motion
Proposal: Consolidate Security Proposals into a RFP Process
Voted: For
Rationale: Creating a framework for security proposals is good. It brings structure and leaves room for various high-quality security providers to interact with the ArbitrumDAO
Proposal: The Arbitrum Coalition
Voted: Abstain
Rationale: The concept behind the Arbitrum coalition is great and needed. However, prior to L2BEAT stepping down as DAO Advocate, there were centralization concerns, and thus DAOStewards voted to abstain
Proposal: Proposal to Backfund Successful STIP Proposals
Voted: Against
Rationale: We were not in support of this proposal. We would have preferred to see how the projects that already received STIP funds perform before sending out more funds
Proposal: Funding Gas Rebate and Trading Competition Program to Amplify Arbitrum’s Ecosystem Growth
Voted: Against
Rationale: We believe the timing of this proposal was all wrong. It should have been included when the STIP was live rather than coming as a stand-alone proposal
Proposal: AIP: ArbOS Version 11
Voted: For
Rationale: We were in support of the changes and upgrades to the Arbitrum chain seeing they have been audited
Proposal: Timeline Extension for STIP and Backfund Grantees
Voted: Voted Extend for both
Rationale: After reviewing the proposal, and sighting the extreme variations in KYC timing and inappropriate timing for the backfund STIPs, it only made sense to extend the deadline
Proposal: Experimental Incentive System for Active ArbitrumDAO Delegates
Voted: For
Rationale: We voted in favor of incentivizing delegates for their participation in the ArbitrumDAO. We have been in a few communities that implemented this and have seen how such programs foster more active participation, bringing in newer contributors in the process
Proposal: Establish the ‘Arbitrum Research & Development Collective’
Voted: Abstain then Lowest to Highest
Rationale: We abstained and then voted from lowest to highest. If the ARDC should be implemented, we should start with the lowest possible cost iteration, and see how that turns out before pushing to scale
[Non-Constitutional]: Establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee
Voted: For
Rationale: Establishing the Procurement Committee adds a needed layer of structure to the ArbitrumDAO. DAOStewards vote in favor of this proposal.
Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
Voted: For
Rationale: Sighting the potential risk of removing the lower threshold, DAOStewards votes to increase the multi-sig threshold to 9/12 as this is a more straightforward approach to tackling the Stage requirement
[Constitutional] Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process
Voted: For
Rationale: Providing better wording is essential to ensure clarity in the Constitution and the community at large. DAOStewards voted in favor of these changes.
AIP: Batch Poster Manager and Sequencer Inbox Finality Fix
Voted: For
Rationale: These proposed changes are highly welcome as it doesn’t affect the original model but add a layer of security. DAOStewards votes in favor of this proposal.
Empowering Early Contributors: The Community Arbiter Proposal 2.0
Voted: Abstain
Rationale: When this proposal dropped last time out, some clarifications were requested by the DAO. These weren’t still tended to so DAOStewards voted to abstain.
Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game
Voted: Against
Rationale: DAOStewards voted against this proposal. Some context here.
[Non-constitutional] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge)
Voted: For
Rationale: DAOStewards are in favor of this proposal. More context here.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum Research and Development Collective Elections
Rationale: We participated in the election process for the members of ARDC and voted for these candidates giving rationales.
[Snapshot] [Non-Emergency Action] Fix Fee Oversight ArbOS v20 “Atlas”
Voted: For
Rationale: We were generally in favor of this proposal and voted in favor of setting L1 surplus fee and L2 minimum base fee.
[Snapshot] Catalyze Arbitrum Gaming: HADOUKEN!
Voted: For
Rationale: This will grow the Arbitrum ecosystem in leaps and bounds. We voted in favor of this proposal. We also believe having an advisor is important.
[Snapshot] Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
Voted: For
Rationale: We reviewed the proposed additions Tally was looking to bring on and they were good initiatives. We decided to support the upgrades.
[Snapshot] Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)
Voted: Against
Rationale: We weren’t in support of this proposal at the current iteration when on Snapshot so we voted against the proposal.
