1 Security Council Election Closing May 2, 2024
Security Council Election
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders which candidates should serve in the next term as Security Council multisig signers. There are six seats to fill.
Recommendation: Vote bartek.eth, Raf Solari, OpenZeppelin, Ryon Nixon, fred, yoav.eth. Most of these names are familiar and so need little explanation individually. As a slate, we feel these selections would provide a Security Council with an ideal mix of technical, security, and legal understanding, and seasoned members while also beginning to cultivate new members. There is also a representative from Offchain Labs.
1 Poll Closing May 3, 2024
STIP-Bridge
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support partial renewal of STIP grants, typically up to 50% of the initial request or 500k ARB, whichever is higher.
Recommendation: Vote Yes. We have mixed feelings about this proposal. On the one hand, it continues to lock in incumbents. The commitment for Open Block Labs to provide summaries of the efficacy of previous grants, however, gets us to a Yes. The goal is always to spend grants money intelligently, and that remains the primary goal. If a grant to an incumbent grows Arbitrum, then that is acceptable, even if we would prefer a more open, standardized process like renewing LTIP, which would be available to all applicants.
Assorted LTIPP Revision Polls
Summary: These polls were put up by applicants that were not recommended for a grant under the LTIP Pilot.
Recommendation: Vote Abstain on all. We feel this represents a breakdown in the process. The LTIP Pilot did not allow for reviewers to provide feedback and then have applicants adjust, as their applications were frozen once submitted. This invariably did lead to some applicants not getting grants that likely would have had they been allowed to make revisions.
That being said, applicants should have been offered a new cycle of grants to apply to. In other grants programs, it is absolutely normal for grants to be rejected the first time and then subsequently approved after being strengthened based on feedback.
What we have here, however is the worst of all worlds. Applicants were rejected, given feedback, and understandably want to try again after responding to that feedback. Unfortunately, governance has chosen to revert back to direct appeals to delegates. We don’t think this is fair anyone.
- This process gate keeps new applicants, who are not allowed to apply in this manner.
- This process deprives existing applicants from a rigorous, thoughtful feedback process like they received in LTIP Pilot to maximize the strength and efficacy of their grant plans.
- This process deprives governance from an organized work flow that minimizes waste and maximizes return on grants spending in the form of new users, new developers, and demand for block space.
- This process encumbers delegates who must now go through each application carefully, which is the very task they sought to escape by establishing LTIP.
Governance would be best served by simply tabling all of these applications and immediately renewing LTIP to allow for subsequent grants cycles to minimize delegate work load, maximize return on grants, maximize opportunities for grant applicants, and minimize governance spend once the best opportunities have been exhausted.
Edit: We voted No on GovHack at ETH Brussels. This is an inexplicably big budget and should be half this amount or less.
CC: @karel @Sinkas @coinflip @olimpio @wintermutegovernance @gauntlet @griff @dk3 @blockworksresearch