Title: Dispute
Username: 404DAO
Reason for dispute: We believe that a number of our comments were not properly counted towards delegate feedback.
Evidence:
- We flagged governance concerns about the initiative’s design—specifically the lack of DAO representation and an election process, which we believe was a contributing factor to native Arbitrum protocols being excluded from the choices.
- In an additional comment, we asked a critical question about who would be responsible in the event of a security incident; for the record, Entropy responded privately in Telegram.
- We noted that most Arbitrum marketing is driven by the Foundation and Offchain Labs, likely making DAO funding for this proposal challenging.
- We nevertheless expressed support for a community-first marketing strategy and shared insights to the questions posed by the proposal author, on user needs, ecosystem fit, and governance processes.
- Rika authored this proposal and replied to delegate comments but this post does not appear in our forum activity on Karma and we received no credit—we suspect this may be due to Rika’s forum account not being linked to 404’s in Karma, even though we requested this in the previous DIP version.
Lastly, since this new DIP is only two months in, we’d like to offer constructive feedback: the highly subjective nature of delegate evaluations calls for greater transparency from program managers; the Notion page currently lacks the level of detail necessary to help delegates dig into their scores and improve their contributions in future months.