Title: Dispute
User name: paulofonseca
Hello there! I would like to argue for the inclusion in my DF score, of the following comments I made, that were considered invalid:
Questbook DDA Program Report - #11 by paulofonseca I think this comment above is quite relevant since it highlights the candidate’s opinion that was shared in a recorded call in October and that almost nobody knew about. I discovered this while doing my typical due diligence to vote on the elections. And I shared this information because I thought it was important for the next Questbook election, so I also made sure to share it before the Elections snapshot vote on Jan 15th, so that delegates could make a more informed decision on the Dev Tooling and Stylus Questbook election.
[DIP v1.5] Delegate Incentive Program Results (December 2024) - #11 by paulofonseca This comment above highlighted a mistake in the accounting of the December’s DIP. I think it’s relevant and impactful since you guys agreed with it and changed the list of proposals included in the presence multiplier score.
MSS for Arbitrum - Communication Thread (Arbitrum Multisig Support Service) - #7 by paulofonseca This comment is also quite relevant since the MSS had not been updating their reporting in quite a while, and they did so, after I reminded them with this comment, as per the next reply 2 days after my comment.
Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025 - Eastern Europe’s Leading Ethereum Conference and Hackathon - #166 by paulofonseca Related to the above, this payment was very delayed because of MSS delays and because I commented this and tagged the right people, the payment was made 1 day later, as per the next comments.
Hackathon Continuation Program - #145 by paulofonseca This comment was quite timely and relevant in the sense that this proposal was a bit rushed at the end of last year, before the DAO holiday break, with the pretext that the DAO needed to approve this proposal as fast as possible because the builders that won the previous hackathon were going to be attracted by other ecosystems and leave Arbitrum if this funding was not available. So my comment here was made to check on the progress of the delivery of the proposal so that the DAO would be aware of that.
Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget - #2 by paulofonseca This was the first comment in the thread and I believe it’s relevant because i captures the main objection with this proposal. I made this comment after extensive conversation in the private telegram delegates chat about it and this argument is the main reason why I ended up voting against the proposal.
Paulo Fonseca – 10% Delegatoooor Kickback Program This whole topic and conversation above is relevant, timely and impactful in the sense that in a time where the DAO is experimenting with ARB staking, researching potential quorum changes, having big movements in delegates voting power (with @lobbyfi becoming the most powerful delegate for example), this experiment of mine can bring interesting results and discourse into the arena. Also, I don’t monetarily benefit from this experiment, quite the contrary actually, since I’m giving away 10% of my earning in Arbitrum DAO, for the sake of this experiment and maybe some additional voting power delegated to me, but only if the experiment is successful.
Application Template to Utilize Funds from the DAO Events Budget - #12 by paulofonseca This is not so much a dispute but just a confirmation check. Was this comment above included in the score of the other comment I made in this thread? Just checking, because I think this one is also quite relevant for the conversation of whether to fund or not to fund this proposed event.
Thank you!