Frisson Delegate Communication Thread

[Frisson]

This thread serves as a single location to review all of my voting decisions and associated rationale in the Arbitrum DAO.

My delegate profile on Tally: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/delegate/0xfrisson.eth

[Frisson]

Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO

I voted FOR this proposal at the Snapshot and Tally stages. I share Areta’s view that there are likely to be strong strategic acquisition targets designed to increase Arbitrum’s technology and ecosystem moat relative to other blockchains. I’ve had a good experience collaborating with the Areta team on other initiatives in the past and have confidence that they will execute well on this pilot.

[Frisson]

Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund

I voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot because I believe the current members of the ADPC are sufficiently qualified to evaluate protocols for subsidy fund eligibility. As a DAO, we should be conscious of adding unnecessary organizational complexity. We are already responsible for evaluating the performance of the ADPC. We should not take on the burden of evaluating and monitoring another group without a clear reason.

[Frisson]

AIP: Nova Fee Router Proposal (ArbOS 30)

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot because it simplifies the operations of the DAO without any significant drawbacks.

[Frisson]

AIP: Activate Stylus and Enable Next-Gen WebAssembly Smart Contracts (ArbOS 30)

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Stylus makes Arbitrum accessible to a new, huge community of developers while ALSO improving performance. Stylus is one of the most exciting recent innovations in crypto.

[Frisson]

AIP: Support RIP-7212 for Account Abstraction Wallets (ArbOS 30)

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Personal storage of private keys is the most painful aspect crypto UX today. Excited to support this AIP to introduce a more secure option for using crypto without personally storing private keys via passkeys.

[Frisson]

Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. It’s essential that Arbitrum maintain its status as a stage 1 rollup. Increasing the non-emergency threshold to 9/12 is a reasonable and safe way to do it.

[Frisson]

Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally with no change to my reasoning.

[Frisson]

STEP Program Manager Applications

I voted for Avantgarde and Steakhouse financial because I think they have the most relevant experience for this role. I weighted Avantgarde higher (75%) because I agree with their point that “Since Avantgarde was not part of the screening committee for the service providers, we feel we are in a good position to act in an unbiased way in monitoring the providers selected, and can provide an additional independent level of oversight beyond the opinions provided at the screening stage.”

[Frisson]

[Non-Constitutional] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Venture Initiative

I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage because I think the scope of the research project is too vague and broad. It doesn’t seem like the team made significant progress on defining the Arbitrum Ventures opportunity in the months leading up to this pilot initiative proposal. I don’t want to set a precedent that anyone can come to the DAO for 100k in funding to research an opportunity. I would like to see a proposal that has more specificity at this stage.

[Frisson]

AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator

I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage because I think it’s important to bootstrap BOLD with an aligned validator. With that said, I would like to explore additional incentive mechanisms in the future to ensure that a broad set of parties participate in BOLD.

[Frisson]

AIP: BOLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum

I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage because BOLD makes Arbitrum more secure and credibly neutral by technically allowing anyone to dispute the chain state.

[Frisson]

[Non-Constitutional] Pilot Stage: Treasury Backed Vaults research and development

I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Re-sharing my feedback below. I like this proposal for a couple of reasons: * It creates an avenue for the DAO to directly use Arbitrum protocols, which I think is a win-win. * It creates an avenue for the DAO to access stablecoins, which I think is important for DAO ops and treasury diversification. Some potential concerns to consider: * The DAO will need to have an alternative source of stables available to pay off the debt per the concer…

[Frisson]

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives (UPDATED)

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally because I think it’s a strong incentives grant proposal that will onboard a strong DeFi protocol to Arbitrum. I appreciate the team’s willingness to work within the format of LTIPP as much as possible.

[Frisson]

Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal

I voted AGAINST this proposal at the temp check stage because the overhead (non direct investment) costs are excessively high and because (from what I can tell) there is not a concrete plan in place for the DAO to capture upside/returns from the venture investments made.

[Frisson]

[Non-Constitutional] ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO

I voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot because I am somewhat skeptical of building out an alternative marketing/comms home base for the DAO outside of the existing platforms (Foundation website, Arbitrum Twitter, Gov forum). Attention is already fractured as it is.

[Frisson]

Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations

I voted in the following order on this proposal at the temp check stage: Improving Predictability Abstain Against Predictability, Approval Process Starting all votes on Thursdays and introducing a holiday break will make it easier for delegates to prepare adequately to vote on proposals. I don’t think an approval process is necessary. I think proposers are adequately incentivized to avoid submitting low value proposals by the Snapshot and Tally proposal thresholds and by the desire to avoid …

[Frisson]

[Non-constitutional] Subsidy Fund for Security Services

I voted for this proposal on Tally for the reasons listed below.

[Frisson]

Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO

I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage for the reasons outlined here.

[Frisson]

Jumpstart fund for DAO improvement

I voted AGAINST this proposal at the temp check stage, because it is duplicative of the Plurality Labs Firestarter grants program. At this stage of the DAO’s journey, I don’t think it’s reasonable to effectively run two such open-ended grants programs in parallel. We should be focusing on understanding and improving existing programs rather than duplicating them. I’m open to evolving Firestarter grants into something like this Jumpstart fund in the future, but would want to do so based on a comp…