JoJo
January 11, 2025, 6:05pm
10
January 2025 voting Snapshot votings Vote: For
I am mostly agreeing with pedrob here; despite so, will vote in favour.
I think is worth hammering the table on one of the narrative in which arbitrum is leading, which is RWA. I would have rather preferred to see some changes, including either
the program falling into the new one just voted for treasury management OR
the program falling under opco.
Understanding that continuity here means moving relatively fast (relatively cause is ognna take months according to the timeline), the handover of the program would likely be such to further increment this time. For this reason, and knowing the very good professional background of Paper & Gang on these instruments, I prefer a continuation as it is. With a caveat: this, ideally, should be the last iteration of this program as it is. For the next one we will either have 1) opco up and running 2) treasury initiative going to expiration with a potential renewal if opco is not ready. I would like an handover of the program. To clarify, doesn’t mean it would need a new committee for example (but there could be a merit to reduce it if the current treasury management committee has some experience, to avoid surplus), nor that steakhouse won’t be the PM until the end of the mandate. But if in 6 months we want to add another 40, 50, $100M to the program, it should be done under either opco or currently elected treasury managers.
On a final note, I hope we will be able to diversify the issuers with the next RFP, obviously always while being compatible with the risk profile the committee will deem necessary. But I would like to see also new issuers, since the growth is one of the target of this program.
As a final note: please potentially reconsider the budget for the 4 committee members. It’s quite likely there should be more applications, and the budget might be on the low end here. An increase of 20-25% to 30-32.5k per member could be ok imho, knowing that there is in these programs a somehow linear effort based on the amount of applicants.
Vote: Equally split among all candidates
Vote: Equally split among all candidates
Vote: Equally split among all candidates
Vote: Equally split among all candidates
Vote: For
Voting in favor of the proposal.
We need the ability to tell to “someone” if something is wrong, without fear of repercussion in a space that is not only quite small but lacks proper accountability like other industries, at least for now.
I am also in favor to build an ad-hoc infra for this (pedrob mentions protonmail, but would not suffice imho because it will make the commission work just too complex; it also does not allow for proper anonimity on the side of whistleblower if they are not careful enough on their email).
Thanks Entropy
Vote: Against
I am voting against this proposal.
First I want to commend 0x_Buidler and his crew on iterating on this project for several months if not almost a year: we need, in Arbitrum, builders like you capable to stick to their personal vision. This is not a statement to just sweeten the pill here, I really mean it.
[…]
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this.
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy , after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don’t get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
Beside this, I generally speaking agree with the comments on the budget. Without going into the specific details, 19k per month for all of this feels like a lot.
While there was the effort to embed this into the SOS proposal and any future change, I don’t honestly think is enough: the website of the DAO will be one of our main front end for communication beside social accounts (assuming we will ever had dao managed ones), and it has to go through a more high level strategic plan.reporting dashboard with a 6 months horizon, of the 11,000 visit to the website almost half of them come from India, which is neither right or wrong but is likely a byproduct of the founder being based in that geography AFAIK. Which means, to me, that the current reach is mostly tied to personal effort, and we are at a point in which we need to step up the game in several areas.
As a final note, I don’t know how the current team could interface themself with the DAO in future, and likely with OpCo going forward, I can’t say if with the current terms this project could be for example absorbed by the opco, or the team hired as service provider. I like the work that was done, and I think we should find a way to reward the “stickiness” of a team in the ecosystem, just, not with these economical terms, and not without an higher level plan.
Vote: For
This was something we thought about adding when we drafted the proposal. However, there are quite a few frictions we foresaw with this approach. For example, it’s well-known that DAOs often move slowly, inherent to their decentralized nature, meaning that, e.g., 6 months might not be enough time for the objectives’ “correctness” to materialize. This means that delegates may be more inclined to vote for a change prematurely, especially given delegates voting for a change can’t be obligated to create a submission. Compare this to the current structure, where ad hoc objective adjustments can be proposed by anyone at any time, but this requires them to post reasoning for the change together with adjusted objectives and key results. As such, objectives could still be changed 2/4/6/etc. months after their implementation, but the proposer must be able to clearly justify the reasoning and exert effort in creating an adjusted objectives matrix. This ensures that proposals for change are tied to accountability and require proposers to deeply think about the current objectives as well as what should be changed and why. The proposal also suggests instructing the research member of the ARDC to create quarterly reports on how the DAO is doing against its objectives, meaning that active delegates will receive timely updates on any potential changes that might be needed.
I think this is fair. I totally understand how a quarter or 6 months might just not be enough to evaluate the mid term status of a goal, I did personally face the same thoughts on the D.A.O. program.
Thank you for addressing my concerns here, I am in generally voting in favor and would have had despite the clarification above, because we need to make concrete what we started with MVP and we need to move from a high level vision to more tangible goals. It’s a long process but I bet will bring a new level of maturity in our DAO.
Tally votings Vote: For
Confirming the two previous snapshot votes. Also, to quote a few differences, I think is wise to keep the validators’ list in Nova permissioned, since we would have to increase x10 the tvl in there just to create the bond we will have in One.