Dispute
cp0x
There are several controversial assessments of my comments:
- [ Arbitrum Obrit ] - In-Chain SQL Database for Arbitrum Orbit - #13 by cp0x
I think the rating of the impact 1 is incorrect, as well as the depth of analysis of 3
- to analyze this proposal, I went through several similar tasks from other chains, where similar ideas were expressed over the past few years. Taking into account the results of the implementation of the DB in the chain, I expressed the opinion that it is possible to implement and everything will be fine for the developer, but it will be very expensive for the user due to very expensive Select queries
- taking into account this analysis, as well as the need to work with this database only within the Arbitrum and Orbit, I concluded that such a solution would not be very correct
Considering the depth of the analysis and conclusions, I believe that my rating of the 1st chain should be significantly higher.
- [DIP v1.5]Delegate Incentive Program Questions and Feedback - #35 by cp0x
I think this comment should be taken into account and given a high score
- I did an analysis for different delegates to make sure that the comment points are taken into account on the arithmetic mean
With this in mind, I proposed a model of a situation in which this would have a bad effect not only on a specific delegate, but also on the overall system: after all, if you are punished for a bad comment, then everyone will be afraid to write one. - Also, I not only did the analysis, but also proposed a solution to this problem to avoid the human factor
- Tane also agreed with me, who mentioned me in his comment about calculating points
-Despite the answer that such a system suits SEEDGov, they still did a good analysis of various solutions, including mine.
In this regard, I think my comment should be highly appreciated and taken into account.
And I still think that my proposal was better than what is currently used, because now the selection of worthwhile comments is done by a person, and the human factor should be reduced
- [Non-Constitutional] Service Provider Utilisation Framework - #14 by cp0x
I also think this comment should be rated highly
- I analyzed the proposal and compared it with the previous one
- I pointed out the discrepancy between the requested funds for the project of 100,000 and the levels that exceed 100,000
- I also proposed my vision of audit levels, in accordance with other DAOs, as well as relying on DAO grants, where QuestBook is already operating in a similar way
This way we could save time for small projects that do not require a lot of funds for audits, but the analysis of these projects will take up the time of all the council experts
-
DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #7 by cp0x
I believe that my comment should be highly appreciated.
I have conducted a large analysis of this program, I will not additionally indicate all 7 points that I touched upon in my comment, however, this is one of my most important comments, where I analyzed both the proposal itself and previous Arbitrum grants, offered my ideas based on projects that showed positive results in past grants
I also answered questions from other delegates, which can be considered a continuation of my first comment, because the cost seemed overpriced to others. I indicated and compared it with other grants and showed that this is significantly less and perhaps it is worth increasing the amount for incentives -
Also, I participated in all the calls, I was late for the monthly one, but I still stayed there for about 1 hour, which I think is worth considering