This will be the thread where I keep track of all off-chain and on-chain voting activity, including the rationale or motivation behind each vote I cast:
January 2024
I voted AGAINST this proposal on Tally. Echoing the sentiment from here, as increasing regulatory concerns (which are not sufficiently clear in the proposal) makes it so that establishing an OpCo and committing to it for a long time frame warrants much greater consideration.
While I recognize there are clear benefits in creating a separate legal entity, this should ideally be given a proper trial run on a smaller scale to increase its chances of passing with a proven track record of efficiency that can off balance most voters apprehensions as of today.
I will vote FOR on Tally. Overall this initiative targets the type of diversification that is aligned with the DAOs long-term objective, while also promising greater sustainability regardless of how crypto markets and tokens perform.
Timing is also perfect, so executing this in 2025 is definitely the way to go.
I voted FOR on Snapshot. This is really a no-brainer and combining both Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP is probably the way to go.
February 2024
I will vote YES on Tally to “renew the program with $7,477,800 and 5 domains”. I am particularly keen on seeing how better methods to assess project sustainability in the long run are implemented from season 3 onward.
The program itself is a great idea, but the short or long-term viability of any grants is what we truly should use to determine its success.
I will be voting vote FOR on Snapshot. Having reviewed the Stylus’ program track record from past proposal and seeing some of the pitches, the budget allocated towards this seems quite sensitive, especially when compared to other programs whose direct benefits to the ecosystem are not as obvious.
I am particularly interested in the Ember LP optimization and its potential improvements over fees structures for all parties involved.
I will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. While I don’t have the best grasp on all the ins and outs for putting together an event of this nature, the budget seems quite steep for what is largely an online event.
Since I’ve been voting and going over proposals I’ve come across others that do a better job at justifying their cost structure or at least offer far more value/ROI/leads in relation to cost.
I will be voting FOR onchain on Tally. Happy to double down on my previous Snapshot vote as I believe there is enough value to pursue in the applications that would benefit from it. However, upon further consideration I do share the same concerns as @paulofonseca where extensions should not be the SOP for prolonging programs without a greater revision of their success or results, especially when such a large budget increase is required.
Will be keeping an eye out for similar cases in the future to avoid this becoming the norm.
I will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. While the overall sentiment and goals behind a separate Audit Program are more than justified, I think there is some clear overlap between it and what should ultimately be part of the ADPC’s mission.
Reading @adpc’s response it’s obvious this proposal was born out of dissatisfaction with the ADPC’s results or its failure to be deployed quickly, but there was miscommunication between both parties and we should really be asking ourselves if that alone warrants shelling out an extra $10M on a different program.
Procurement of proper auditors should be the number one concern for any audit program, and I think this could/should be achieved with involvement from both actors, if the audit program were to be passed.
Would it be worth considering giving the ADPC a seat at the committee in a revised version of this proposal?
I appreciate adding a seat for an OpCo representative, and have no objections towards the budget and structure, save for the immediate need to request the 30M ARB, in spite of not knowing how much will actually be spent and thus possibly adding a bit of unneeded selling pressure (even if unused funds are returned in USDC and ARB).
Recapping, I don’t think this proposal should move forward without establishing a better integration of it within the ADPC’s goals or its role within the proposed Audit Program.
I will be voting FOR on Snapshot. The full technical implications of this upgrade are far beyond my scope, but with Ethereum’s latest updates is necessary and it covers Arbitrum’s main chains, so no further comment. Good enough for me.
March 2024
I will be voting YES on both options or mainly supporting the #1 Deploy Both Strategies option on Snapshot. The rest of my RCV will be: #3, 2#, Abstain, #4, in that order.
First, my reasoning for supporting the ARB strategy is that selling pressure FUD isa bit overblown given what the market already dumps on its own naturally. Also, while finding proper insurance is a tough ask, I think the TMC’s numbers have been laid out sufficiently well for us to back this option to alleviate current downside.
Regarding the stablecoin strategy, I believe the same applies here. The TMC is not proposing anyting out of this world that the most finance saavy here don’t do already to some degree. Optimizing and testing out these strategies is key so that we can deploy them quicker moving forward. Yes, there’s a inherent risk to both, but we’ll never be able to fully cancel those risks out and we also have to consider the opportunity cost for not implementing either proposal.
Once again, I am voting FOR on Tally. Sentiment is the same as when I voted on Snapshot, this a no brainer that generally improves the network and adds extra treasury funds. Not much else to add.
I will be voting FOR on Tally. My reasoning being the following: I became active in the forum around the time this was first pitched and have joined the DIP since then. Creating proper resources for those who want to somehow contribute or work on the DAO or Arbitrum as a whole would help a ton of people through this process, as opposed to having to figure everything out themselves.
Building an evergreen curriculum and reusable materials can help anyone get started way quicker, even outside the bootcamp.
Seeing as initial budget concerns have been -at least- partially addressed, I can definitely back this initiative.