February 2024
[Non-Constitutional] [RFC] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
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.
Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget (Snapshot)
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.
Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
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.
Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget (Onchain)
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.
Arbitrum Audit Program
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.
[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
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.