Due to the size of the initiative and the Ethereum Foundation being behind it, I believe we must support and sponsor this event. Compared to the other spending we have at Arbitrum DAO I believe spending 75 ETH as Unicorn Partners is not an expense too big for the DAO. I agree with Griff’s proposal that the sponsorship could be paid in ARB.
I voted FOR Unicorn Partners as the first option, and Panda Partners as a second option.
On behalf of the UADP, we think the main thing that came from this that we think was ultimately appealing was the audit sections and clause. However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DAO, not enough to justify the costs.
Hey Larva,
I appreciate the comment. Out of curiosity for the future, can you explain you logic behind Ethereum being external to Arbitrum?
Thanks for the comment. I’m wondering how I could approach this differently in the future? The proposal was available for comments for more than 2 weeks before the snapshot.
Hey rodrigolvc. I’m not saying Ethereum has nothing to do with Arbitrum, I’m just saying that Arbitrum should put more fund and effort into the Arbitrum ecosystem native projects. The recent sell-off of tens of thousands of ETH by the Ethereum Foundation, who have enough money to fund this activity without seeking funding from Arbitrum. This proposal is unfair to ARB holders and native projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem that have not yet been funded.
Lampros Labs DAO currently supports this proposal to sponsor the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon as it directly benefits the security and reliability of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum’s commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
These thoughts are collectively presented by @Blueweb, @Euphoria & @Nyx under the Lampros Labs DAO delegate.
@rodrigolvc Hey, what’s the reason for not asking to Optimism?
I’m usually in favor of initiatives that aim at enhancing security, but I have some doubts about the direct benefits of this proposal for Arbitrum. The cost is pretty high and the direct benefit would mainly be in terms of marketing. If we really want to proceed in sponsoring “non-arbitrum only” projects I would prefer to see us go for a lower sponsorship tier. Is any tier below Panda Partners available? I also find it strange that you have no intention to post this on the Optimism forums
For the time being I’ll be voting for the Panda Partners tier but I would be more confident in this choice if other L2s decided to take part in the initiative too.
FWIW i tried to look into the Optimism governance forum and couldn’t find any trace of this proposal.
(not good nor bad, just stating this since a few delegates asked me if the same initiative was live in OP currently)
Great question!
For typical out and out marketing channels like blogs, website, twitter, etc. we can report on views and reach. For the initial announcement of the program those were 7M and 3M respectively.
We can measure page views to the landing page at regular intervals and as requested. We will also have an activation at Devcon which we can measure in terms of signups and attendance. We intend to stream the event if possible and we will be able to measure viewers and reach on that as well.
Last, the results announcement of the event will be similarly measurable and the evergreen audit style report created and educational materials will have sponsor names as well which can also be measured in terms of views, reach and downloads.
I think this is a fair question. The Optimism Collective has two programs in the forum (RetroFunding and Mission Grants) and this initiative doesn’t neatly fit the scope of either. We are still trying to find a way collaborate with Optimism on this.
We just wanted to point out that currently, the two options that are being shown on the Snapshot are Abstain and Unicorn as the top two options. Of course, Abstain isn’t really an option and shouldn’t be considered.
Therefore, we think that when removing all abstaining votes as number 1, the number 1 option becomes Against (not Unicorn). We want to point out this as upon quick glance, some could make the logic of “Abstain wins, Unicorn second” and therefore Unicorn wins based on the ranked voting.
Whereas in reality, we think Abstain shouldn’t even be considered, and for all that chose abstain first, their second choice should be the primary vote. Going forward, it might not make sense to have Abstain be an option to prevent display quirks like these.
I voted in the following order on the temp check proposal:
The Arbitrum protocol and ecosystem depend on Ethereum L1 for security. I think it’s reasonble for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute funds to the Attackathon. The Unicorn Partners level is a bit high for me, especially because it requires the DAO to send ETH from the treasury.
I am voting “Panda, Abstain, Against, Unicorn”.
There is a merit in sustaining the Ethereum ecosystem initiatives, especially the security oriented ones, and by just participating we will get the audit contest in Arbitrum.
That said, I think the Panda commitment would be enough for this initiative, at least in the first iteration in which is proposed, and we can see in future if we want to double down on potential success.
Also, I still think we should pay the equivalent in Arb in the Tally proposal if it’s ok for the organizers instead of Eth.
We really value initiatives that focus on Ethereum security, as it’s crucial for the long-term success of Arbitrum and the entire ecosystem. However, the amount requested feels like a bit too much for this sponsorship, especially since it’s an online event and our main benefit would be having our logo displayed in a few places. While we support the idea behind this, we believe the cost doesn’t quite match the value Arbitrum would receive, so we’ll be voting against this proposal.
We’re voting: 1) Panda Partners, 2) Abstain, 3) Against, 4) Unicorn Partners. Panda tier balances support and budget prudence. Unicorn tier overcommits resources. Consider ARB payment for the chosen option.
I am voting as follows: in favor of Panda, against, abstain and finally Unicorn.
I appreciate the focus on security and efforts to improve infrastructure through competitive initiatives.
However, honestly, beyond marketing, I don’t see anything particularly valuable being added to Arbitrum.
And definitely, Unicorn proposal feels a bit excessive.
Voted in favour of Panda, and then Abstain since it was the second choice with the most votes (would have preferred Against).
I appreciate your response, but I disagree regarding the benefits.
The main benefits are:
Marketing benefits are just a bonus to those.
Thank you for your vote. We already clarified in previous comments that we can receive ARB.