GFX Labs Delegate Communication Thread

1 Poll Closing April 20, 2024

Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders wish to allocate another $4,000,000 in ARB to the Dedicated Domain Allocation grants program.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This program provides a quick path for smaller grants (15k ARB and below). Quickly deploying experiment-sized grants is important in a grants program portfolio, but we would like to see a comprehensive follow up on how all grants to date have performed in meeting their internal goals.

3 Polls Closing April 25, 2024

Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support delegating 7,000,000 ARB and a 50,000 ARB administrative budget for Event Horizon, which allows users with a soul-bound NFT to influence how this 7m ARB would vote.

Recommendation: Vote No. This is an idea that has been tried in various ways in other ecosystems. In general, the results tend to be lackluster, and don’t get at the core problem of small voters not having an incentive to devote time and effort into voting decisions. There is also the paradox of whether these voters have no delegation because they simply can’t get visibility or because they are not attractive for ARB holders to delegate to. To the extent delegation to those who fail to secure their own delegations would be desirable, we would prefer it be for individuals who have an established track record of participation and thoughtfulness.

Subsidy Fund for Security Services
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support providing subsidies on audit services for projects selected by the Procurement Committee.

Options are:
$0
$2.5m in funding
$5m in funding
$10m in funding

NB: This is a weighted vote poll.

Recommendation: Vote 100% for “1 Cohort of 8 weeks ($2.5m funding)”. This budget provides plenty of funding for audits, particularly if participants are asked to cost share a portion of the auditor fees. If this proves to be insufficient, more can be allocated in future rounds.

Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support donating to Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund to provide legal and political advocacy in the US.

Options are:

Fund with 500,000ARB each;
Fund with 750,000ARB each;
Fund with 1,000,000ARB each;
Fund with 1,250,000ARB each;
Fund with 1,500,000ARB each;
Don’t Fund.

NB: This is a weighted vote poll.

Recommendation: Vote 100% for “1,500,000 ARB each”. Both of these organizations have consistently provided meaningful support on crucial areas of US litigation and public policy. We have personally witnessed their efforts forestalling poorly written legislation and in defending DAOs in court.

Disclosure: GFX Labs authored an earlier proposal that was then included in this one.

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.

  1. This process gate keeps new applicants, who are not allowed to apply in this manner.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

2 Likes

1 Poll Closing May 19, 2024

GovHack at Eth CC (Brussels)
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support providing ~$352,000 in ARB to fund GovHack at Eth CC (Brussels).

Recommendation: Vote No. This is an inexplicably large budget for a hackathon, as we stated at the Snapshot level.

1 Poll Closing May 28, 2024

Grant Request: Curve Finance
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support granting 237,500 ARB to Curve for a liquidity mining program. This grant request is structured as a match for 237,500 ARB that the Curve founder is supplying for this program. Full details can be found here.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. We do not encourage grants to begin going directly through Arbitrum governance. However, this is a request to match funds already being provided for a program that is on Arbitrum. The requested size is also modest, making it easier to approve.

1 Poll Closing May 29, 2024

Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties
Summary: This proposal allows the LTIPP council to choose who fulfills posted bounties. 200,000 ARB for bounties was included in the LTIPP budget.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This allows the LTIPP council to continue to serve governance by removing minor decisions and will result in quicker bounty payouts.

1 Poll Closing May 28, 2024

Arbitrum Multisig Support Service
Summary: This proposal asks ARB holders if they support electing 12 members of a multisig to administer all DAO funding operations. The MSS would be opt-in for the existing six multsigs performing funds distribution work, and opt-out for programs launched in the future.

Recommendation: Vote FOR: Implement MSS and Reporting. There are currently half a dozen fragmented programs performing ministerial functions around disbursement of funds. This creates a lot of duplicative effort and expenses. We support consolidating these roles as proposed.

18 Polls Closing May 27, 2024
NB: Due to the holiday weekend in the US, we experienced difficulty in getting signers before the deadline to vote. This was due to GFX Labs’ strict chain of custody and internal voting procedures – votes are as valuable as coins.

Umami Finance STIP Addendum
Summary: 375,000 ARB to extend the Umami STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Umami appears to have retained its peak TVL from the original STIP program, suggesting the program was both effective in growing TVL and the gains are sticky at least in the short run.

Dolomite STIP Addendum
Summary: 500,000 ARB to extend the Dolomite STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Dolomite appears to have retained its peak TVL and borrowing from the original STIP program, suggesting the program was both effective in growing borrowing/TVL and the gains are sticky at least in the short run.

Thetanuts STIP Addendum
Summary: 200,000 ARB to extend the Thetanuts STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. Some prominent delegates have suggested the design of the program allows Thetanuts to farm the incentives with protocol-owned liquidity. While the TVL and other metrics appear stable even after the end of STIP, Thetanuts is now continuing with their own incentives program, making it unclear if the gains from STIP are sticky enough to warrant more funding.

OpenOcean STIP Addendum
Summary: 250,000 ARB to extend the OpenOcean STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. This grant size is around ⅓ the entire TVL of OpenOcean.

Angle DAO STIP Addendum
Summary: 350,000 ARB to extend the Angle STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Abstain. We are unable to form a strong opinion. The original STIP program was not a standout success, but focused on a different asset issued by Angle. Because this is meant to be an extension of successful programs, we are not voting in favor, though the plan outlined is not without merits to recommend it in a different grants setting.

Socket Bridge STIP Addendum
Summary: 500,000 ARB to extend the Socket STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. As has been remarked upon in the forum, a discussion of the exploit of the protocol during the STIP program has not occurred in depth. The funding address also appears to contain a quarter million ARB already.

Furucombo STIP Addendum
Summary: 350,000 ARB to extend the Furucombo STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. ARDC members have raised concerns about the original STIP grant being subject to wash trading, and also cited the a poorly defined extension program.

Stake DAO STIP Addendum
Summary: 150,000 ARB to extend the Stake DAO STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. ARDC members have noted that STIP is still ongoing for this protocol, and consistently fewer than 10 unique daily users during incentives period, suggesting poor traction.

Savvy DAO STIP Addendum
Summary: 200,000 ARB to extend the Savvy DAO STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. Grant request is around ⅓ entire protocol TVL according to DeFi Llama.

Thales Protocol STIP Addendum
Summary: 200,000 ARB to extend the Thales STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. It does not appear that volumes or user counts were sticky, with both falling back towards previous, unincentivized levels. This grant program is meant to extend the most successful grants programs, and it does not appear this extension would be an effective use of ARB.

Boost (Previously Rabbithole) STIP Addendum
Summary: 500,000 ARB to extend the Boost STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. A high sybil ratio has been claimed, as well as an undue focus on DEXes. Despite these concerns, however, Boost has proven to be an effective tool for “top of the funnel” marketing for protocols and chains. That is expected to be less efficient than “lower in the funnel” and so we don’t find it surprising. There remain few alternatives to onboard brand new users to DeFi, however.

Gains Network STIP Addendum
Summary: 2,250,000 ARB to extend the Gains Network STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. It does not appear that volumes or TVL were sticky, with both falling back towards previous, unincentivized levels. This grant program is meant to extend the most successful grants programs, and it does not appear this extension would be an effective use of ARB. The size of this grant also means we hold it to a higher standard than a more modest one.

Kyberswap STIP Addendum
Summary: 450,000 ARB to extend the Kyberswap STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. Volume does not appear to have returned to Kyber since the exploit in November 2023. We would prefer to see evidence of resurgent protocol use before providing such a large follow-on grant.

Tide STIP Addendum
Summary: 100,000 ARB to extend the Tide STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Abstain. It is not clear to us from the provided data and updates whether this grant deserves an extension.

Sanko GameCorp STIP Addendum
Summary: 250,000 ARB to extend the Sanko STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Protocol use metrics appear to be holding up as the STIP incentives wound down. This extension program is specifically for follow-on grants for STIP programs that provided evidence of success, so we support a new grant.

Solv STIP Addendum

Summary: 150,000 ARB to extend the Solv STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. Protocol use metrics appear to be deteriorating without ongoing incentives. The low active user count also makes it difficult to approve an extension grant.

Stargate STIP Addendum
Summary: 750,000 ARB to extend the Stargate STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote Abstain. It is not clear to us from the provided data and updates whether this grant deserves an extension.

MUX STIP Addendum
Summary: 1,900,000 ARB to extend the MUX STIP program.

Recommendation: Vote No. It does not appear that volumes or TVL were sticky, with both falling back towards previous, unincentivized levels. This grant program is meant to extend the most successful grants programs, and it does not appear this extension would be an effective use of ARB. The size of this grant also means we hold it to a higher standard than a more modest one.

1 Poll Closing May 31, 2024

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support 1,900,000 ARB to target existing Kwenta users on Optimism and other chains to migrate to Arbitrum.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This is a large price tag, but the grant plan is narrowly focused on appealing to migrating the protocols’ existing user base with subsidies to migrate and increased rebates for existing users from other chains.

1 Poll Closing June 2, 2024

Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support 52,000 ARB to fund an 8-week study of available M&A opportunities for Arbitrum and whether it makes sense to pursue any of those opportunities, if any are available.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Like several other delegates, we requested considerably more information before moving forward with a serious attempt at M&A, mainly with the goal of ensuring this is not a solution in search of a problem. This information-gathering initiative addresses those questions, and will let delegates make a more educated decision on whether to seriously pursue this idea.

1 Poll Closing June 3, 2024

Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support 42,500 ARB for Wake Up Labs to build a user interface to make it easier for non-technical users to force a transaction in the event the Arbitrum One sequencer is offline.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This is a useful piece of decentralization infrastructure. Being technically possible to force transaction inclusion isn’t very useful if most users aren’t able to do it. The UI will help with that.

1 Poll Closing June 7, 2024

Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support 225,000,000 ARB for grants, investments, and other initiatives to grow the web3 gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum chains.

Recommendation: Vote No. This is nearly a quarter billion dollars – more than 8% of the TVL of the entire Arbitrum chain. That’s just too much to spend on any single industry, especially one that’s so nascent. A major program to spur gaming is possible, and possibly desirable, but this is just too much to spend in any one place. It’s a major dilution to ARB holders and is not using best practices by disbursing the entire amount up front.

2 Polls Closing June 9, 2024

Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to alter Security Council multisig parameters to be more rigorous, with a 9 of 12 threshold. This is to maintain “Stage One” designation from L2Beat.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This increases user safety. Thank you to L2Beat for pushing for more rigorous standards in rollups. Optimism recently made changes to their Security council multisig for similar reasons.

ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support 500,000 ARB each (1,000,000 ARB total) for Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund to support advocacy and legal defense efforts for DeFi in the United States.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Both of these organizations have consistently provided meaningful support on crucial areas of US litigation and public policy. We have personally witnessed their efforts forestalling poorly written legislation and in defending DAOs in court.

Disclosure: GFX Labs authored an earlier proposal that was then included in this one.

4 Polls Closing June 6, 2024

Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support a 60,000 ARB operating budget (approximately 100 ARB/hour for 15 hours of each Sub-Committee member) for administering the Security Services Subsidy Fund.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This is an on-market rate for these contributors to administer this program to provide subsidized audits to projects deploying on Arbitrum. The program has a goal of subsidizing audits from pre-approved auditors for 50 Arbitrum projects.

AIP: Nova Fee Router Proposal (ArbOS 30)
Summary: This is a technical upgrade to automate transfers of fees from Arbitrum Nova to the Arbitrum governance treasury.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This automates a process that will need to be repeated. Also, the quorum for transferring the collected fees is 5%, which is more than the 3% a treasury proposal would require. Automating the transfer directly to the governance-controlled treasury makes it possible to spend funds collected on Nova through votes that are comparable to other spending proposals.

AIP: Activate Stylus and Enable Next-Gen WebAssembly Smart Contracts (ArbOS 30)
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support enabling Stylus on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Stylus is a virtual machine, but will not alter the EVM aspect of Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova. Because of this, it provides an additional route for developers’ smart contracts to interact with the chains, and should have no impact on smart contracts built for EVM. You can read more about the features of and development history of Stylus here.

AIP: Support RIP-7212 for Account Abstraction Wallets (ArbOS 30)
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support implementing Rollup Improvement Proposal 7212.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. RIP-7212 (aka EIP-7212) has been proposed as a standardized way for L2s to further support account abstraction wallets. RIP-7212 has already been adopted on Polygon PoS and Optimism.

2 Polls Closing June 11, 2024

Election of STEP Program Manager
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to select a service provider to monitor and administer the STEP treasury program. Full applications for each provider can be found in the STEP category of the forum.

Voters may choose from:
Particula(dot)io
Bluechip(dot)org
Steakhouse(dot)financial
Avantgarde(dot)finance

Recommendation: Vote 75% Particula.io, 25% Steakhouse. We feel these providers have the most relevant experience. Steakhouse is the most expensive option, but does have a significant track record of performing this sort of work for MakerDAO. Our main blocker to providing them with more votes in favor is simply the extensive network of existing business relationships they have, which could create conflicts of interest depending upon which assets are ultimately chosen. Particula’s staff has an auditing and credit analysis background that is especially relevant to this program and is priced competitively.

[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they wish to fund a research phase for an Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. The budget can be approved with or without a real-world event.

Voters may choose from:
For [Full Scope] ($99,000)
For [No IRL] ($54,000)
Against
Abstain

Recommendation: Vote Against. We’re not necessarily opposed to a ventures program. But we do not encourage providers to come to Arbitrum, state that XYZ is needed, then request funds to then research why XYZ would be a good idea. The thesis should be mostly formed why ventures would be beneficial. Asking for funding to conduct research to better understand the issue the proposer brought to the DAO indicates to us that this could be a solution in search of a problem, rather than beginning from identification of a pain point and solving it with a ventures program.

1 Like

3 Polls Closing June 13, 2024

AIP: BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support upgrading Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova to include BoLD, which is a package of changes meant to better allow for dispute resolution when challenging Arbitrum state. Full details can be found here, but some notable parts of the BoLD upgrade:

Removes the ability for malicious actors to spam challenges, which results in a delay in finalizing resolution.

Allows for permissionless validation with the removal of the delay attack griefing vector.

Two-day grace period for the Security Council to override any resolved dispute.

The proposal will be audited by Trail of Bits before deployment and a public audit program will be created afterwards. The proposal also offers recommendations on amounts of ETH for bonding validators. There is no monetary costs associated with this upgrade, as they are all covered by Offchain Labs.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This is an important upgrade for Arbitrum to advance to “Stage Two” rollup status on L2Beat. We are comfortable that technical risks are being thoroughly mitigated.

AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support providing 4,234 ETH for the Arbitrum Foundation to run a BoLD validator. This is to meet the bonding requirements of the protocol. Funds would come from this address.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. We would prefer to see the Foundation use its own $14m in funds to provide this bond. But that apparently is not an offered option, so we will support the use of governance funds.

AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Operational cost sentiment
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support providing 900 ETH to support BoLD validator service fees of 4% over three years and reimbursement of L1 gas costs for honest validators. The Arbitrum Foundation will not be eligible for a service fee on is operation of a validator with governance ETH as the bond.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Validators don’t work for free, and this seems a reasonable initial funding and cost subsidy. If it’s found to be too much, too little, or should be denominated in a token other than ETH, then that can always be iterated upon in the future.

1 Like

1 Poll Closing June 17, 2024

Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support providing 250,000 ARB to design, build, and audit a module for Arbitrum governance to utilize ARB as a collateral for borrowing from DeFi protocols.

Recommendation: Vote No. Our thinking has been gradually evolving on this topic.

First, ARB in the treasury should not be considered an asset. From an accounting standpoint, counting that uncirculated ARB as an asset would violate accounting norms and perhaps even be alleged to be a misrepresentation. GFX believes in firmly stamping down the misconception that uncirculated native tokens are assets. It encourages excess spending due to a feeling of wealth, and is simply incorrect from an accounting standpoint. So utilizing ARB tokens as collateral would – aside from other objections raised by others – be the same as minting new ARB if a liquidation were to occur.

Secondly, and more optimistically, Arbitrum has other assets it could leverage for credit. Governance has access to ETH, and soon will have stable-value assets as well (even if they’re more exotic or legally encumbered RWAs). To the extent that credit is needed, we would prefer to see existing assets used as collateral instead of a dilutive mechanism.

We are voting against this proposal, but support it coming back after more discussion. Specifically, we want to see specific uses cases where Arbitrum would want to utilize a line of credit, as well as at least identification of sources of funding to repay any debt. We are not in favor of giving governance tools to become indebted before there is at least one reliable source of funds to allow for repayment without resorting to ARB token sales.

1 Poll Closing June 20, 2024

[Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support authorizing ~$10.5m in ARB to fund three ventures-related experiments. Full details on each of the three can be found here.

Recommendation: Vote No. Because this is three different initiatives, the funding for each is sized for being experimental. But the cost structure of one of the three initiatives is simply unworkable – with $1.4m overhead to deploy $1.6m. That would require an 87% return just to break even, and is not setting the program up for success. We simply can’t support such an obvious inefficiency from the start, and recommend revisions to this plan before resubmission.

1 Poll Closing June 24, 2024

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives
Summary: This poll asks if ARB holders support 1,900,000 ARB to target existing Kwenta users on Optimism and other chains to migrate to Arbitrum.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This is a large price tag, but the grant plan is narrowly focused on appealing to migrating the protocols’ existing user base with subsidies to migrate and increased rebates for existing users from other chains.

1 Like

1 Poll Closing June 26, 2024

ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support providing $474,000 in ARB for the ArbitrumHub, which was recently completed in its initial form. This proposal for another six months of work includes weekly update reports and various other line items. The full list can be found here.

Recommendation: Vote No. This is a good concept, but the proposal just needs to get the cost down and focus more. We believe there is value in providing intra-DAO communication within the Arbitrum community, and would point to the former MakerDAO GovComms Core Unit as an example of one that delivered good content. Ultimately, that group became too expensive to survive a round of budget cuts, and we hope the ArbitrumHub group will keep that in mind. We like the concept, but just want to see a lower budget and more specificity. If looking for guidance on the latter, the community contribution incentives would be an easy line item to remove entirely.

1 Poll Closing June 27, 2024

Multisig Support Service (MSS) Elections
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to elect 12 signers for the Multisig Support Service. As a reminder, the MSS was passed to provide an opt-in, out-of-the-box way for the fragmented Arbitrum governance initiatives to custody program funds for short time periods.

The 40 candidates:

  1. PGov: Professional governance org led by juanbug (Jun) with multi-sig experience in Uniswap, BadgerDAO, and Lido.
  2. Dylan Brodeur / limes.eth: ENS DAO Steward with multi-sig experience in both Arbitrum and ENS.
  3. JoJo: Risk Analyst at Jones with multi-sig experience in various grant programs and Arbitrum initiatives.
  4. Westie: Research Analyst at Blockworks Research with multi-sig experience in Synthetix and Optimism.
  5. Griff Green: Co-Founder of Giveth with significant multi-sig experience in various DAOs and rescue operations.
  6. Sov: BD, Partnerships, and Grant Ops at Gitcoin with grant program management experience and multisig experience with grants programs.
  7. Reverie: Investment and advisory firm with extensive on-chain governance and multi-sig experience in dYdX, Uniswap, Osmosis, and Orca.
  8. Puncar: Prev EY Blockchain team, contributing to various DAOs and grant programs.
  9. Xavier Finlayson: Community manager at Treasure, sits on ARC multsig.
  10. Castle Labs: Research and advisory collective experienced in governance, DAOs, and Arbitrum that operates all aspects of their business with detailed multi-sig operations.
  11. Chris “@caesar” Eley: Business Development at Premia.Blue and Cold Glass Capital with multi-sig experience including during time with Knox Finance and DeFi Pulse.
  12. Hillstone: Subsidiary of Steakhouse Financial with many governance engagements and extensive multisig competency.
  13. Grace (Rebeca) Rachmany: DAO Consultant with 5 years in the crypto industry and has previously created and used multisig wallets for PricelessDAO and TomiDAO.
  14. Blockstar Advisors: Provides content and research services in the crypto space.
  15. Avantgarde Finance: DAO service providers with delegation for projects like Uniswap, Compound, SAFE, ENS and sit on various multi-sigs for projects such as Enzyme, Paraswap, Deversifi. Developed research for the Arbitrum Treasury and Sustainability Working Group.
  16. Madison Sinclair / coolhorsegirl: Head of Business Development at Tally and currently serving on the Moonwell DAO Security Council and Polygon Village Grants Council.
  17. Alex “slobo.eth” Slobodnik: Founder of namestone.xyz & ENS Steward. 5-time Elected ENS DAO Steward with direct oversight over 7+ figures of value across several multisigs. Creator of arbwallets.xyz, enswallets.xyz, and votingpower.xyz.
  18. Cattin: Jr Dev at Kali, Governance at Seed Latam, Analyst Intern at Delphi. Experience in managing multisigs as a Domain Allocator for QuestBook and for the Arbitrum Delegate Incentive Program.
  19. Defipm / 0xCasio: Business, Product and Governance at Stryke and has multsig experience through managing Stryke’s STIP & STIP.B grants and main multisig. Extensive technical skills in transaction management.
  20. Ultra: Currently Core team, Engineering Lead at Jones: Extensive experience in smart contract development, multi-sig operations, and a signer for several DeFi projects. Active Arbitrum DAO contributor and delegate.
  21. Ryan Clark: CGO at nftperp. Previously worked at 1kx and contributed to Index COOP and MetaCartel.
  22. Feems: Active governance contributor with experience as Grants Operations Advisory for POKT Network, Gitcoin Grants Community Council Member, Thrive Pluralistic Grant Program Reviewer Tier 1, and Hats Protocol Steward Season 2 & 3.
  23. Den Technologies Inc: Den is the fastest multisig for onchain teams. Their team has deployed Safe multisignature wallet infrastructure for various chains, including Arbitrum Nova, Arbitrum Sepolia, and Orbit Chains in collaboration with the Arbitrum Foundation.
  24. Sinkas: Governance Representative at L2Beat and contributor to MetaFactory. Host of Arbitrum’s monthly ‘Open Governance Call’ and helps maintain Arbitrum’s Governance Calendar.
  25. DAOplomats: A professional governance-as-a-service organization. Their teams sits on several multisigs which including the 1inch DAO Operations Multisig, RARI Foundation Grants Council Multisig, and BanklessDAO Core Multisig.
  26. Serious People: Advisors to several Arbitrum projects and active contributors to the Arbitrum DAO. Led by Ian Campbell, CEO, who has several years of experience managing DeFi projects and multisigs.
  27. Cryptoharry: Head of Treasury Working Group at Inverse Finance DAO. Extensive experience as a multi-sig signer and governance contributor, with advanced technical skills in transaction creation, simulation, and smart contract development.
  28. Zellic: Led by Stephen Tong, Co-Founder and CEO, Zellic is a member of the Arbitrum Security Council. They are a team of security experts with over 10 years of experience in multi-sig operations, cryptography, auditing complex EVM protocols, and managing multisig wallets for various clients.
  29. Arana Digital: A professional governance team of ex-Michigan Blockchain members with multisig experience from the Uniswap Deployment Committee, Uniswap–Arbitrum LITPP Grant, and Uniswap Arbitrum Delegate Program (UADP).
  30. StableLab: Represented by Matt, Stable Labs is a professional governance company active in over 20 DAOs. They served as the PM for STIP, LTIPP, and STIP.B which involved directing the mutlisig for each of those programs.
  31. Maryana Ryumshin: Member of Decentraland DAO’s Revocations Committee & Financial Planning Lead for Decentraland DAO.
  32. Disruption Joe: Governance Relations at Thrive Protocol and was a signer for the STIP multisig, the PL-ARB Grants Safety Multisig, and the ADPC.
  33. Frisson: Chief Revenue Officer at Tally and is also a member of the Uniswap Deployment Accountability Committee and is a signer for the Arbitrum Delegate Incentives multisig. He has extensive experience with governance contracts and deploying & signing SAFE multisigs.
  34. Lindsey Winder: CEO at Hedgey and currently serves as a signer for the incentives mutlisig. Hedgey worked closely with Arbitrum DAO to distribute the STIP, STIP-Bridge, and LTIPP grants.
  35. Brian Adam: DAO Operations Lead at Push Protocol and Project Manager at daospace.ai. Previously was a signer for Index Coop’s MetaGovernance committeel a multisig that controlled $ millions in voting power on DeFi protocols such as Aave, Balancer, Compound, and Uniswap.
  36. The Block: Representing The Block, Abraham Eid, serves as the Research Director has several years of experience creating and signing SAFE mutli-sig wallets. The Block also has 20+ researchers with significant experience in many areas of EVM development.
  37. 0xMims: Previously the Head of Written Research at FranklinDAO and now is a Blockworks Research Analyst and Governance Associate.
  38. 404 DAO: A professional governance organization that are active delegates in multiple DAOs; Arbitrum, Optimism, Uniswap, and Wormhole. Within Arbitrum DAO, they served as an LTIPP Council Member.
  39. Jordan Yeakley: Head of DeFi Research at Delphi Digital and has extensive onchain experience since 2018. Involved in Arbitrum DAO through the ARDC.
  40. Alex Lumley: Alex Lumley, is the Co-Founder of Savvy DAO, and has assisted in crafting several Arbitrum DAO proposals including STIP Backfund, LTIPP, STIP Bridge, and GovHack.

Recommendation: Vote PGov, Arana Digital, Reverie, Castle Labs, Madison Sinclair, Feems, Sinkas, Disruption Joe, Frisson, Lindsey Winder, Alex Lumley. These are mostly individuals or organizations that we have worked with before. Some exceptions are Lindsey Winder, who is the head of Hedgey and seems useful in the event there are technical blockers when an administered msig needs to set up a funding stream, and Castle Labs, who has impressed us with their comments on past Arbitrum initiatives.

1 Poll Closing July 10, 2024

Approval of STEP committee recommendations
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to ratify the recommendations by the treasury diversification committee, which recommends the following allocation (in ARB):

Securitize BUIDL - 11 million

Ondo USDY - 6 million

Superstate USTB - 6 million

Mountain USDM - 4 million

OpenEden TBill - 4 million

Backed Finance bIB01 - 4 million

Recommendation: Vote Yes. GFX Labs was a member of the screening committee and helped author these recommendations after an extensive diligence process and discussion with other committee members over what best suits Arbitrum’s treasury program goals.

2 Likes

1 Poll Closing July 21, 2024

[Non-Constitutional] - Subsidy Fund Proposal from the ADPC
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to provide 3,500,000 ARB for the ADPC to use at its discretion to fund security audits of projects on Arbitrum. Excess funds will be returned, and $250,000 is the maximum available to any single project. The address to receive funds is controlled by the Arbitrum Foundation.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. At this point, it is standard for major Layer 2 ecosystems to offer subsidized auditing services to prospective and existing protocols. Arbitrum has to remain competitive.

1 Poll Closing July 26, 2024

[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to transfer 191,700 ARB to fund research into a ventures program funded by governance.

Recommendation: Vote Against. We’re not necessarily opposed to a ventures program. But we do not encourage providers to come to Arbitrum, state that XYZ is needed, then request funds to then research why XYZ would be a good idea. The thesis should be mostly formed why ventures would be beneficial. Asking for funding to conduct research to better understand the issue the proposer brought to the DAO indicates to us that this could be a solution in search of a problem, rather than beginning from identification of a pain point and solving it with a ventures program.