Voting Rationale: Sept 20-26th, 2024
Security Council Cohort 3: Nomination Phase
It is our team’s belief that at least one member of Offchain Labs should be present on the Security Council, as their technical expertise and unparalleled knowledge of the Arbitrum tech stack are crucial in war room situations. With Gzeon having already received sufficient votes in the Nomination Phase, Entropy has instead split its votes between ConsenSys Diligence and Emiliano Bonassi. Both candidates are qualified, with ConsenSys Diligence being a reputable audit firm and Emiliano having deep expertise of the Arbitrum Orbit Stack.
Snapshot
GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity
Entropy Advisors has hosted delegate events in the past and has plans to do so at future conferences. Therefore we voted ABSTAIN due to what we view as a possible conflict of interest.
[Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget
Entropy has voted FOR, and as previously commented, our team is fully in support of this proposal. The Arbitrum Foundation has proven itself to be a credible entity over the last year and a half, and such an amount is necessary to secure high-impact partnerships for Arbitrum.
Several other delegates have suggested an oversight board composed of DAO members who would have insight into the deal process. While this may sound like an appropriate solution, there are many important questions being overlooked:
- What powers does the board have to stop a deal it doesn’t approve of?
- Does every deal have to be approved by the board?
- Does the board have a veto ability? In what situations could it utilize this authority?
- What relevant information can members even share with the DAO if under NDA?
- What happens if a board member leaks private information about a deal?
Once diving into the details, such a board seems impractical, and ultimately would just serve as a hindrance to the Foundation’s ability to properly execute rather than providing the DAO any real transparency.
[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program
Entropy has voted FOR DIP V1.5 as we considered the first rendition of the Delegate Incentive Program to be successful and a meaningful driver in increasing delegate participation in the Arbitrum DAO.
Compared to V1.1 presented, we are more supportive of qualitatively assessing a delegate’s contribution and the fact that V1.5 helps encourage participation in conversations that may not make it to Snapshot. Additionally, while the Karma Score was a better mechanism than voting performance, it is still relatively easy to game and the forums saw a noticeable increase in bot activity after DIP V1 launched.
Qualitatively assessing the impact of delegate contributions will be difficult and managing the DAO’s compensation program is a serious responsibility, but we have faith that the SEEDLatam team can be trusted for the task.
Two points of constructive criticism:
-
Echoing some of the other comments made by delegates, a minimum participation rate of 60% for onchain votes in the last 90 days is low. Granted there are not as many Tally votes, but an 80% participation rate feels more appropriate given that being up to date on onchain proposals is the most important delegate function.
-
While we recognize the amount of time and effort a delegate must put in to be truly effective, most delegates arguably shouldn’t be in the $6-7K payment range. We will be keen to see the first few months of data to see what the average compensation is in this updated version. A suggestion for a future iteration is to set a lower base pay ($2,500 in ARB) with the remainder being, e.g., delegated to the recipients’ address and vested over 1 year. This would help promote long-term alignment with Arbitrum and its token.
Overall though, Entropy is supportive of the program and hopes it continues to attract top talent to the Arbitrum DAO.