The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally Voting.
As outlined in our Snapshot voting rationale, the program is designed to stimulate early on-chain activity and retain promising builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By strategically investing in select projects, we aim to create opportunities for innovative teams to deliver impactful solutions and expand the ecosystem.
Overall, we support the program and look forward to seeing how the selected projects contribute to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem in the future.
We should keep in mind the best brands evolved into their position and I encourage any voter to check out more of the projects that were submitted, like the one that got 4th (Station)
It’s inspired by Trello/Notion (great TAM) and enables automated task compensation.
Here’s the complete list of finalists’ pitches if any wish to review: x.com.
I like the idea of the project since I believe can bring value to the ecosystem and it’s something new helping hackers.
I believe that not all the ideas in hackathons are compatible with a buisness (they shouldn’t) and it is different to build an startup. Help from rnDAO might help.
I didn’t like that in the proposal rnDAO offered an stated amount of $ for matching but it wasn’t clear that they are not commiting money cash as stated Hackathon Continuation Program - #120 by danielo I know that it is money at the end but it is different when you are also involved with cash upfront.
I’ve decided to vote in favor of this proposal on Tally. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this program has the potential to deliver highly valuable results. The expected outcomes are promising and align closely with our strategic objectives, potentially driving significant advancements in innovation. I appreciate the collaborative nature of the program, which could open up new opportunities for the DAO.
I have voted against this proposal in Tally. Following forum comments from delegates and proposal creators, some of the criticisms and points raised make a lot of sense, from @raam from the Arbitrum Foundation, @BlockworksResearch, @paulofonseca and @Entropy.
Mostly, communications regarding monetary commitment from RnDAO being or not being cash was not too transparent from the get go, wording didn’t help delegates to understand how is the 200K monetary contribution being calculated exactly, how many hours estimated to be spent, etc. Cost for deployed capital also seems excessive ($-deployed/expenses).
Voted For: For the same reason as my comment on the Snapshot vote. Timing here is important, and we need to keep up with the support of the selected startups.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
We have further reviewed the feedback of other delegates since our earlier response and have an update to our earlier position to ABSTAIN on the proposal.
While we are still in favour of the proposed program in principle, we have concerns in the following areas:
The proposal positions RnDAO as co-funding this proposal alongside ArbitrumDAO but responses on this front have been unclear at best. The initial proposal seemed to suggest that RnDAO and Arbitrum DAO would both be putting capital into the program, which has since been dismissed and corrected in the comments that RnDAO’s portion is ‘sweat equity’ or ‘human capital’.
Due to this misunderstanding on our part, we would like a breakdown of the planned utilization of funds allocated from Arbitrum’s budget and the recipients, along with the allotted hours and rates of RnDAO’s allocated ‘human capital’.
With regards to the equity provided by the projects participating in this program, what is the proposed split between Arbitrum DAO and RnDAO? This information is essential for delegates to ensure that Arbitrum DAO is getting a fair deal.
In your experience, what is the average success rate of Accelerator-funded projects within crypto?
The issue with the proposal is not on the actual program itself but on how important details of the working relationship between Arbitrum DAO and RnDAO in this program have not been outlined as clearly as possible for delegates’ consideration and required questions raised to bring them to light.
We still think the program outlined holds potential value and as such we will vote ABSTAIN on Tally and expect the above to be clarified in detail for proper review by delegates before any distribution of funds to RnDAO.
Don’t you think it sets a bad precedent to vote on a proposal where the proposer refuses to share information publicly? I find it difficult to understand the logic of some delegates voting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few. This could lead to a dangerous situation where a proposer might choose to share private information exclusively with certain delegates to secure their votes, which doesn’t seem aligned with the values of transparency and fairness that should guide our governance.
Additionally, I’d like to point out that a private message or a call is not binding when it comes to the proposal. Nothing ensures that the proposer will follow through with what they explain privately; the only binding element is what’s explicitly stated on Tally.
Let me clarify that this is my personal stance and does not represent SEEDGov’s delegation position. That said, I believe approving this proposal without even having a clear budget breakdown is, at the very least, irresponsible. Within the Domain we oversee at Questbook, where we demand much higher levels of detail and transparency, this proposal simply wouldn’t meet the necessary standards for approval.
The information is available to every delegate. Just not publicly in an ungated forum. I have mentioned time and again that we’re available for calls and DM conversations where we can share all relevant details and answer concerns.
The information disclosed in the call is the breakdown of what’s shared publicly, and would the totals be wrong (i.e. less work is delivered than promised), that would still be binding. There’s no need to share publicly that 2k went to person A and 3k to person B to hold us accountable wen there’s a 5k public commitment.
Forcing every supplier to disclose the salaries of each team member is not only a rather extreme position but also not common practice in Arbitrum e.g. Entropy does not share such breakdown.
The information we have shown any delegate who engages with us in private also includes a detailed breakdown of activities which is a more effective mechanism for accountability.
The current process in Questbook as run by SeedLatam is rigorous in reviewing line item by line item but there’s still no financial auditing, so we’re in good part adding bureaucracy and barriers for suppliers to participate without solving the key point around accountability. (note that adding auditing for small amounts would increase costs unnecessarily and end up being counterproductive).
This bureaucracy also has an important cost for the DAO as the granularity creates rigidity (there’s no process for changing the plan), so programs end up being delivered without the possibility for optimisation within the budget e.g. reallocating cost from something low impact to a higher impact item. That’s why management has largely shifted away from micromanaging budgets and more towards management by objective while allowing local self-organisation.
I invite you to review our detailed planning in private to see why a delegate as rigorous as L2Beat has voted in favour. No need to suggest they’re being irresponsible before looking at the details
We maintain our vote and reasoning at the Snapshot stage and continue to support the initiative while being a little skeptical about the success of the projects itself.
Regarding the details of the capital commitment, we believe they could have been clarified and communicated better, but we appreciate the fact that the RnDAO team has committed their effort to the success of the builders for the Arbitrum ecosystem and consider it acceptable.
We hope the team learnt from the failure of the previous experiment described in the Entropy’s rationale and will support the selected teams to further grow within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
No one suggested that L2Beat is irresponsible simply because they had the opportunity to review information that you do not wish to share. The question posed to L2Beat was whether they felt it was fine to vote on a proposal where not everyone had access to the same level of information. The subsequent mention of “irresponsibility” refers to the idea that, in my view, it would not be appropriate to approve a proposal without first having access to such information.
Suggesting that hundreds of delegates (or thousands of voters) would need to meet with you individually to obtain additional details is unrealistic and does not align with Arbitrum DAO’s core value of transparency.
No one is asking you to provide detailed salary data for each member. However, we currently don’t even have an estimate of the hourly cost required to manage the program.
My point is that full disclosure of all information was not necessary to present a proper budget breakdown. In fact, we previously mentioned that the earlier version included more detailed information, and it seemed counterproductive to remove it instead of organizing it in a way that would “clarify rather than confuse”.
I wish to share it, just not in a fully ungated forum.
Every delegate has access to this level of information.
They do not need to meet me, I can share via private text too (that’s how we did most of it with L2Beat).
Sharing individual salaries is not “transparency”, it’s an abuse of personal privacy. I understand you’d like a more detailed breakdown, it’s just not really possible to provide that without revealing such data in this case, or at least not possible without creating more confusion.
Would you like an average of the hourly costs of the program? all you have to do is ask… $44
that’s for 7 team members. (3 full time, 4 at 50%)
On top of this team, we’re also adding a tech lead to the team now which is not even included in the proposal (adding him would increase the value that RnDAO is investing)
