Excellent! As a recommendation, there are tools like Hootsuite and HubSpot that can help you track the reach of the channels you’re using to distribute content. Another very useful tool is Meta Business from Facebook and Instagram. If you’ll be sending mass emails, you could use Mailchimp to check who opens the emails, allowing you to target more interested recipients with specific advertising. If you need help or advice with this, I can assist you. 
I will be voting “Panda Partners” tier. Of the two, this IMO provides the most value. As we get to save roughly $112,500 over the Unicorn Partner tier which when you break it down only really seems to provide logo placement upgrades when you start to compare the differences. The Twitter Space speaker feels more like a hassle then a benefit (i.e., who would this even be…?) and a press release, while nice, doesn’t really feel worth the price bump.
The way I’m seeing this… the benefit is marketing. Which obviously while nice to have, Arbitrum is also very well known and truthfully I don’t think we really even need marketing on events like this. Without much benefit, my vote is more to aknowledge that we should show some support for these types of things. As well as effectively paying to avoid the negative press of rejecting support as a DAO. With that in mind, I think Panda teir is a good balance between showing support but not over-paying for something not really needed.
I voted against the proposal. While I highly value any efforts towards securing our infrastructure, the impact on the Arbitrum DAO does not justify the expenses.
We vote “Panda Partners”, “Against”, “Abstain”, and “Unicorns Partner”.
We would basically vote for “Panda Partners” that would give reasonable support to the initiative that contributes to the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.
DAOplomats is voting in this direction:
Panda Partners > Against > Abstain > Unicorn Partners
Security is important and this attackathon would help bolster that. Regarding ROI for Arbitrum, we don’t see anything substantial beyond marketing — which is good. For this reason, we decided to support the initiative as Panda partners, voting against the proposal beyond that.
The following 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.
We are voting FOR this proposal and opting to support at the preference of ‘Panda Partners’ level.
We’re generally supportive of initiatives that benefit the entire Ethereum ecosystem and have supported similar initiatives in the past (e.g., the donation to DEF and CoinCentre). We believe the Attackathon is valuable for enhancing Ethereum’s security and, by extension, Arbitrum’s stability.
1 Like
I’m voting FOR this proposal and supporting ‘Panda Partners’ level.
As mentioned by many before, Ethereum security is a top priority. Without Ethereum, Arbitrum wouldn’t even exist, or make sense. So I support contributing to its security.
The FranklinDAO Team supports the idea behind the proposal but believe that the funds should be allocated to a more Arbitrum focused developer and security event. For example, we would support events that focuses on solving challenges such as permisionless fraud proof systems and help progress Arbitrum to a Stage 2 rollup.
The proposal for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon, while ambitious in its goal to enhance Ethereum’s security, raises several points of discussion regarding the clarity and justification of its funding structure:
-
Funding Transparency: The proposal outlines a goal to raise over $2 million, with an initial $500,000 from the Ethereum Foundation. However, it lacks detailed comparisons with similar initiatives or past events within or outside the Ethereum ecosystem. This absence makes it challenging to gauge whether the proposed amounts are commensurate with the event’s scope or industry standards.
-
Comparative Analysis: There’s a noticeable gap in providing benchmarks against which the community can evaluate the funding request. While the initiative’s importance for Ethereum’s security is acknowledged, understanding how this investment stacks up against previous security audits or similar events in other blockchains would provide a clearer perspective on its value proposition.
-
Community Engagement and Trust: For initiatives within decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum, trust and transparency are paramount. The lack of detailed financial justification might lead to skepticism or questions about the efficiency of resource allocation, potentially affecting community trust and engagement.
-
Proposal Enhancement: To address these concerns, the proposers could consider:
-
Detailed Financial Justification: Provide a breakdown of how the funding amount was calculated, including comparisons with past security audits or similar events in other blockchain ecosystems.
-
Outcome Metrics: Outline expected outcomes in relation to the investment, possibly including metrics like the anticipated number of vulnerabilities found, or improvements in code security.
-
Community Feedback Loop: Establish mechanisms for ongoing community input on the funding and outcomes, ensuring the initiative remains aligned with community expectations.
In conclusion, while the intent behind the Attackathon is commendable, enhancing its proposal with clearer financial transparency and comparative data could significantly bolster community support and trust. This approach would not only justify the investment but also set a precedent for future funding proposals within the Ethereum community.
The results are in for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
gm, I ABSTAINed for this proposal.
While I am generally in favor of sponsoring activities that improve the security of the Ethereum ecosystem, I wanted to see a more collaborative approach from other L2s and players for this.
The Treasure ARC is generally supportive of this idea, viewing any effort to enhance security as a positive step. Regarding the specific proposal, we are aligned with the Panda Tier, as it effectively balances supporting the concept with an appreciation for the importance of Arbitrum in preserving it’s capital to spend on other initiatives.
From our perspective, it is crucial for the Arbitrum DAO to actively participate in public good initiatives, especially in areas like overall security. While metrics like TVL rankings are often highlighted, the EVM and L2 communities should be seen as a unified ecosystem. Initiatives like this, which benefit the entire community, deserve our support. We appreciate that Arbitrum has this opportunity to demonstrate that we’re not competing in this realm but rather collaborating for mutual benefit. We are eager to see the outcomes of the Hackathon and hope it leads to significant advancements in EVM security. Additionally, the post-event Immunifi Hack will be an exciting event to observe and participate in.
My first choice was to vote against the proposal, as I believe we need something more Arbitrum-focused.
Did not have enough time to vote, but would have voted Against or Abstain. More details should be added to the proposal, and we should talk about how this aligns with Arbitrum’s other security / partnership initiatives.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “(1st) Abstain, (2nd) Against, (3rd) Panda Partners, (4th) Unicorn Partners” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
While we generally support initiatives of this nature, as they contribute positively to the ecosystem, our experience reviewing multiple event sponsorship requests in the Domain Allocator by Questbook prompts us to seek additional budgetary details. The claim that the funding goal is up to $2 million requires further clarification.
Additionally, despite mentioning marketing integrations, we observed no dedicated workshop or side event for the sponsor. This is a common practice we typically require when approving grants in Questbook, and it would be beneficial to include such an offering in this proposal.
Hey @rodrigolvc @coinflip , I saw that this proposal is now queued on Tally.
I noticed quite a few discrepancies between what is mentioned on the Snapshot proposal vs what is currently on the Tally proposal, and therefore have a few questions:
- Is this funding still going to Panda Partners? I can’t see any reference to them in the Tally proposal.
- Who controls the multi-sig address ( 0x022ec7543BfB377BbEB6676E5ba5Ecf3950dA889) listed in the Tally proposal? EF, Panda Partners, or someone else?
- Does the current executable code actually send funds to this multi-sig? I can see that the target address in the executable code and the multi-sig address listed in the proposal are different.
- In the Snapshot proposal, the DAO voted to fund Panda Partners with 30ETH, however the Tally proposal is asking to fund the aforementioned multi-sig with a $100,000 USD commitment. Could you clarify this difference in payment amount?
Thanks
2 Likes
Good question about amount of funding
We voted on 30ETH ~ 70.000 $. Why do we see a different amount in Tally?