This will be the main communication thread for my personal governance delegation and votes for both Snapshot and Tally.
As a reminder, I am now an employee of Gauntlet, but was an Arbitrum delegate long before joining Gauntlet. I will continue to manage my personal delegation in line with the views on my original delegation application; these may be similar outcomes to how Gauntlet votes. I will recuse my personal delegation for any votes with conflicts of interest for myself or Gauntlet.
Snapshot Votes
ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas”
Vote: For
I am really excited to see the development around EIP-4844 and am optimistic about the impact this proposal will have on the long-term adoption of Arbitrum. While many chains have been talking about the positive impact of 4844, Arbitrum is leading the charge in terms of implementation. This is a big step that can both reduce gas costs and improve the profitability of the protocol.
Batch Poster Manager and Sequencer Inbox Finality Fix
Vote: FOR
This is a great step from the DAO at improving the safety of Arbitrum and decentralizing operations. I am pleased with the simplicity and elegance of this proposal at addressing a clear problem for the protocol’s security. With other major chains having suffered hacks from compromised wallets, it is great we are able to proactively make this change and not risk having Arbitrum reach the same fate.
Empowering Early Contributors
Vote: ABSTAIN
I am in favor of early contributors getting compensated, but also worry about where/how to draw the line. Abritrum is now quite large and has an abundance of contributors, while we would not have gotten here without the early contributors, we need to focus on how to retain and empower the contributors we currently have.
I am not personally familiar with this contributors actions, so I opted to Abstain. If the community values the contributions that is okay. If this becomes a funding strategy the community wants to lean on more, I would encourage them to create a scalable program more akin to Optimism’s RPGF vs. doing one off payments.
Funding for Into the Dungeons
Vote: AGAINST
Arbitrum needs to figure out how to build a gaming ecosystem, but I am worried that this proposal may cause more delays in rolling out larger, more scalable programs for the rest of the community. This proposal favors a single project and does not result in any user incentives. While there may be merit this structure of funding, the DAO will likely want to monitor it’s performance before continuing with similar programs for other projects. This gives an unfair advantage to this project, as well as risks the DAO deciding not to fund other games.
I would encourage the community to work on a dedicate funding track for games, which can be easily scaled and monitored moving forward.
Tally Votes
Long Term Incentives Pilot Program
Vote: FOR
Arbitrum is at risk of losing new developers and users to emerging ecosystems, which have recently launched tokens and fresh incentive pools. With the remainder of Arbitrum’s incentive programs running out, LTIP will be an important program for the community to rely on for continued user incentives. I encourage the LTIP council to focus on developing a data-driven methodology that can result in positive ROI for the DAO.
Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process
Vote: FOR
This is a straight forward update that will improve the election process for the security council. I am happy to support.