[Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum? (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
Gauntlet votes against the “User Research: Why build on Arbitrum?” proposal due to its overlap with the ARDC, unclear deliverables, lack of quality research examples, and doubts about its critical importance to Arbitrum’s current state. We prefer engaging an established research firm with a proven portfolio. Without confidence in this proposal, we believe it is not an effective use of OCL, Foundation, and Delegate resources. Additionally, confusion exists over whether the focus is on users’ or builders’ needs, and the research methods and questions are not clearly defined, which, in our opinion, is a reasonable funding prerequisite for a service provider tasked with conducting such an analysis.
Designing and operating the reporting and information function (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
We have voted against this proposal due to its high expense, lack of clear deliverables on retroactive funding, and overcomplication of deliverables. Lastly, while OpCo isn’t live, we think a proven operator best does this. We would be more effective executing this reporting along with standardization in DAO program structure and financial standards beyond tracking down each program individually, and communication of those findings (as proposed here).