Griff
June 19, 2024, 10:43pm
2
I’m late to the game for this thread, been commenting in the forum posts and snapshot votes themselves, but now will make all communications here to make life easier on the Delegate Incentive Program organizers
Here are my past comments in the forum on various votes:
I am supportive of this venture. Personally I don’t see overlappoing as a bad thing, I would much rather see us experiment in a few ways to invest in the projects in our ecosystems than get stuck in one way of doing things… Competition is good, and so is moving towards investments with return rather than just grants and incentive programs.
Oh and I don’t see the big win in the IRL event, it just seems extra and not worth it, maybe if it was at ETHCC it would make more sense, but I also think re…
This proposal is way more straightforward than I initially thought, I think it would be great to confirm that there is buy-in from a few other projects in the ecosystem to use this for their own treasury moves, (even if it’s just with rETH) before throwing down $250k into the research.
At first thought, it doesn’t seem like a good idea for most DAO initiatives, but it does seems suitable for some, specifically investment-style proposals with expected returns or proposals that explicitly have an…
I have to agree. But if this was completely the case I would be voting no on this proposal.
However
I am in full support of this proposal, I believe it can help Arbitrum dominate the gaming market, and I believe in the future of on-chain gaming. However, if ARB’s price escalates greatly, we should consider clawing back the funds for other verticals.
Upgrading to BoLD is a no brainer. Making progress towards getting to Stage 2 is always an easy yes.
Proposal 1: BoLD - Permissionless Validation for Arbitrum
Better security and more decentralization via permissionless validation and reduced delay attacks. Who wouldn’t want that!
It seems thoroughly tested and audited. The economic incentives for honest participation seem solid. Easy yes
Proposal 2: Funds to Bootstrap the First BoLD Validator - Bond Sentiment
Honestly, I think its really c…
I would support this proposal
I think this proposal is just a little bit too early.
Give it a few more months, and I would vote yes.
For now I have to vote against it.
I don’t understand exactly, is the $250k the amount being distributed by the DAO?
Does that include the overhead of executing on the grants program?
Or is it all overhead for designing and executing on the grants program and the amount to be distributed will be allocated later?
I don’t know the details of the legal issues that come from setting up $ARB to give dividends to holders… from what little I do know tho it sounds like a bad idea.
A better mechanism might be to use the ETH to buy ARB (via auction or via a dex) and either burn it or give the ARB to the DAO, it would probably bring more profit to the token holders and maybe would be easier for the lawyer types to agree to.
I voted FOR this proposal.
Plurality Labs has been everywhere in the DAO, and have become a critical force, holding the DAO together.
I think the criticism of how they have handled some of their responsibilities around communicating and documenting their outputs is valid and am confident they can address these issues during the next few months.
Out of curiosity, how many projects have started distributing their STIP? Is there a place to track it?
+1 to @cattin ’s push for shielded voting. Honestly, shielded voting should be used whenever possible, the bias of real time results is real.
But that is a separate issue, the current improvements all look great to me
[chuck noris]
This is all VERY reasonable, but I really can’t support 1-off grant proposals… The overhead is too much for our DAO IMO, even with a promise of a future framework.
I really sympathize with your situation @thechaingamer.eth … I am confident there is a path forward for funding for your work… IT IS EPIC but I don’t think a DAO vote is the right path. After the vote passes who is supposed to manage these tranches?
I would love it if this was a proposal to fund Questbook to open up more Gaming gran…
Just to put my comment in a twitter space into the thread here…
I feel like the deadlines for STIP are just too tight :-/
It would be interesting IMO to extend the deadlines for STIP for this group AND the first group. The KYC process is taking longer than expected and it is NEVER a good idea to rush development in the web3 space. Honestly… I expect some groups to just extend past the given deadline anyway…
Is it possible to extend the deadline for distributing rewards to the end of February …
I will be supporting this snapshot proposal, but with a request that we take a large portion of the funds requested and make it subject to vesting.
I don’t think this proposal is formatted in a way that makes sense for us. I cannot support this proposal.
As I said in the Arbitrum Coalition thread:
I would love to see this crew tell the DAO that they will partner with teams to make their proposals more robust, and get payment on a project by project basis, or just take on complex proposals - like making the gas paid in ARB instead of ETH - and propose to be funded to do that!
But if you really want to be the default gate keeper of the DA…
We are very mush in need of a proposal like this… but I’m not sure if I like the cost/value ratio.
Is this one part time (60%) engineer for a year for 800k? (about $1.3M annual salary?)
Is this one VERY part time (30%) quant for a year for $327k (about $1M annual salary?)
Is this one full time person for $780k a year?
I must be reading it wrong.
Please clarify.
In the mean time, seeing what I see, as much as we need the help, we can find better offers.
I love the idea behind this proposal, but I am not a fan of it’s execution. I am a stanch advocate against having the DAO has to vote on every single proposal.
I understand that this is a stop gap solution, and I am hopeful that the “more robust, sustainable program” designed soon avoids having a DAO vote to pass every proposal.
As I have said before, I have a lot more faith in the DAO’s ability to make a few high level decisions than lots of small one off decisions. If we want to distribute $…
Just to be clear…
Proposals should be sent to Snapshots every Monday from 00:00 until 23:59.
Is there an assumed canonical timezone, or are we talking in UTC, or are we following a variable timezone based on where the proposer is located?
Camelot is really cool, but I will be voting against any project focused request for funding directly from the DAO.
These sorts of requests should be made to a competitive grant program, otherwise they give an unfair advantage to the Governance savvy.
While I would prefer this proposal be split into smaller pieces to be voted on individually, I will vote FOR this proposal.
Managing complex web3 grant programs is a lot of work, a 19.7% overhead for a grant program is very high but just like the 20% overhead of the Questbook Proposal, I expect this is a start up cost and if the program continues I would hope the overhead can get to less than 10%.
One part that I love about this proposal is the effort to define the DAO’s Mission, Vision, Value…
I fully support this proposal. I also am excited for Joe’s proposal. Having multiple smaller grant programs is a great strategy and will contrast us with other networks that really centralize their approach.
The budget of $1M / 6 Mo budget is a solid start and I hope the numbers can grow after a successful first 6 months.
20% for overhead is very high, but I hope that, if this approach is a success, the costs become much less of a % of the total budget. As in, if the next round we decide to al…
i see a second vote is going up for this… so we should just ignore the first vote right?
Wow… this is wild… It’s weird to make a ratification proposal… If this is sybolic, why are we wasting our time? Why would we Ratify this and not ratify the airdrop distribution, or anything else about the launch?
I have to vote no, as it is sooooo much money with so little oversight, but it seems like this was already part of the initial airdrop distribution so I don’t even get why we are voting.
This seems 100% unnecessary, and slightly entitled. They made a mistake, but let’s fix it and settle it all together with a real prop. We can get a real proposal out here to move forward.
Voting against.
I have to vote no. I don’t think now is the time to incentivize gaming on Arbitrum, tho I am bullish on the sector in the long run, especially during the next bull run. The competition is tight here and this one is cool, but didn’t make the cut for my ballot. :-/
I supported this proposal, and since the pairs to be incentivized are not chosen yet, I want to urge you to avoid incentivizing stETH, and to encourage you to incentivize alt LSDs as Lido’s staking dominance is a major centralizing black mark on our L1.
I like the Beefy product and think incentives here will help to migrate users, so I will vote yes, tho I am not super stoked with 15% of the rewards going to incentivize the beefy token.
If the grant goes through, please consider avoiding any incentives towards wstETH and double up the incentives for LST alternatives. Thx!
I love Curve… cornerstone defi project for sure.
However, they have not used the 3,476,795 ARB they got in the airdrop for anything yet, and on top of this, in Optimism, they haven’t been able to pass KYC for about a year to use their 504,828 OP grant… Voting yes on this would amount to voting no on other projects that are more likely to use the funds for the purpose of the grant.
I’m sorry, I would vote yes to support Curve if it didn’t prevent others from using these funds as they were inten…
Sadly I have to vote no on your proposal. The proposal on its own would be more reasonable if CHOKE wasn’t being incentivized, that outweighed the benefit to the ecosystem.
I hope there are enough funds for Round 2 to go on and you can reapply without incentives for CHOKE LPs.
Great proposal, reasonable request… but I have to vote no. I don’t think now is the time to incentivize gaming on Arbitrum, tho I am bullish on the sector in the long run, especially during the next bull run. The competition is tight here and this one is cool, but didn’t make the cut for my ballot. :-/
Only incentivizing stETH is a net negative for the ecosystem, so I have to vote no, if this proposal doesn’t make it I hope you don’t incentivize lido and can incentivize rETH, cbETH, etc and re propose for round 2.
I have to vote no. I don’t think mmorg games will be attractive for Arbitrum in the next few months, tho I am bullish on the sector in the long run, especially during the next bull run. The competition is tight here and this one is cool and unique, but didn’t make the cut. :-/
I want to support this grant!
I would love supporting wallet infrastructure but I don’t see the numbers adding up. Arbitrum support was only launched last month and the request is to get 812,600 ARB to get 3000-15000 users to monitor their wallets… and how will you avoid getting sybil attacked?
It’s too much of a stretch for me sadly… I hope that Round 2 happens and you can ask for less ARB, cause I really do want to support this very very important work.
I’m supportive of this proposal, it looks like it will help foster a healthy ecosystem of diversity and liquidity in the LSD space, which we need!
I was clicking around your site tho and couldn’t figure out what the actual unshETH portfolio is… is it this?
[Screenshot 2023-10-10 at 5.40.09 PM]
I like the idea of incentivizing Coinbase earn users with ARB… but am less excited about TCAP as their first entry point to the ecosystem :-/ The competition is tight here and this one is cool and unique, but didn’t make the cut, I hope you can revise for round 2!
Honestly, I would prefer a no self voting policy… but it doesn’t seem reasonable without having someone policing it… so unless that is part of the proposal, I have to agree with @JoJo & @GFXlabs ’s comments.
I especially want to double down on these suggestions from JoJo:
These are important.
Damn… I wish I could go! I am AFK for the next month for burning man. Will try to vote in all the things… but can’t do much more than that.
I wish I could delegate for a month so i could go on vacation!
PRAISE! I have been really hoping for something like this! Thank you for organizing, you are a hero!
@jameskbh stole my thunder. I’m going for 100% Avantgarde
Avantegarde came with a competitive ask and have the track record to execute in the role. I’ve seen them around the ecosystem from WAAAAY back in the day when they were Melonport, and I did a deepdive into their updated system when they proposed to ENS, so I trust them in this role.
Stakewise is also a great pick, and I’m sure they will get the job done if they take the role, I was going to give them a % of the vote but I found it off-p…
