The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
After careful consideration, we’ve decided to vote in favor of the proposal during the temp-check, without however necessarily committing to supporting the proposal during the on-chain vote in its current form.
Our support should be treated as a signal of overall support for continuing incentive programs for the biggest protocols in the Arbitrum ecosystem, but we see the need for more debate and clarity around the results of the previous programs and the expected outcomes of this one.
As others have already pointed out, there’s a lack of information around the proposal, such as the efficacy of previous such initiatives (STEP, Backfund, LTIPP), and not enough overall discussion and involvement from delegates.
While reviewing the proposal, we realized that it’s basically a proposal coming from/involving some of the most prominent builders on Arbitrum. That was something that urged us to carefully review the implications that the outcome of the proposal was going to have in either case (passing or failing). Voting against the proposal during temp-check and effectively “killing it” doesn’t really provide the DAO with steps forward other than sitting on our hands until LTIPP concludes.
We’d much rather keep pushing forward and hold constructive discussions to figure out how to fill in the gaps and improve the proposal, especially based on the feedback of the people who are currently opposed to the proposal or abstaining from it than take steps backward.
With that in mind, we’re voting in favor of the proposal at the Snapshot vote so we can signal that we’d like to figure out how we can best improve the proposal before going to an on-chain vote.