JoJo Delegate Communication Thread

[JoJo]

July 2024 voting

---

---

Snapshot votings

Approval of STEP committee recommendations

Vote: For

@JoJo

Voting “for” on this proposal.

This is the natural evolution of several months work, experimental but also important in size, that we need for our treasury.

As i told devansh in other channels, what i don’t like is the fact that the trimming from the initial 17 projects to the current 6 has not been publicly motivated. While I can understand some issues in disclosing details on unreleased products, the space would likely benefit most in understanding why a protocol was selected, and why another was not. I strongly suggest, for a potential next iteration of this, to change this specific course of action.

Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations

Vote: Favour (predictability only, predictability + approval, abstain, against)

@JoJo

Voting in favour of predicability only.

We need a way for people to know when they will have to do their job (yes, doing this has the responsibilities of a job knowing the consequence of certain votes; and also has for some compensation attached).

I don’t currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don’t think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication.
Would like to see this option (approval), if fails, to be reconsidered in 6 months, after a) we have more data on this b) we have had redelegation weeks and other initiatives that might help toward this goal c) other initiatives that could further reinforce the governance strength we have in arbi.

Cheers!

Pilot for a Questbook Jumpstart fund for problem definition and DAO improvement

Vote: Abstain

@JoJo

Gonna vote abstain on this danielo.

Again, we spoke about it: as posted before, i firmly believe the bulk of a payment on a proposal in a stream like this should come mostly through the confirmation of a snapshot voting. I don’t see this being less than 50%, because 10 or even 20-25% would be a “nice bonus” on top of the work. If at least 50%, if not more, is instead tied to the success of it (and here to me success = approval from the dao = “for” vote), the proposers would work toward this goal, from the foundation of the problem.

I see your point about failure = lesson learned, so still valuable. I can see that, but in this specific stream to me we should push for the other side of the coin, a succesful proposal more than anything.

Furucombo’s Misuse of Funds

Vote: For - Ban Furucombo from the Arb

@JoJo

Voting in favour of banning furucombo here.

Would like to provide also some more color to this beside what has been already stated above.

All the stakeholders here (foundation, organizers of stip/ltip, council/advisors, protocols) to their best to create program that have an impact and are fair and trasparent. To do so, there is A LOT of work from everyone, including protocols who take time to devise proper mechanisms to distribute incentives and implement them, prepare biweekly report, create dashboard to have precise data analysis etcetera.
Not complying is simply inadmissible considering the effort that everybody puts in these programs.

Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain

Vote: For

@JoJo

Voting FOR on this initiative.

One of the biggest strong point of Arbitrum is the tech stack, and we should leverage it as much as we can.

While some, as we discussed in calls, believe we should keep it more focused on the Eth world, there is a pragmatic consideration to do: if we don’t do it, someone else will. And, likely, we are going in a world in which every dapp might just have his own chain; how big could be the network effect of having Arbitrum tech being the engine of 90% of the L2s and L3s in the world?

Still think we need to refine a bit the proposal. Specifically, we need to be able to monitor and analyse returns over time from specific chains, to understand where the effort should be put BD wise. We need to also understand the cost that offchain labs might have in term of supporting all of these chains, and in general manage the economy at scale. There is also potentially a merit in being able at some point to revise the numbers proposed above (10%) accordingly to business needs.

Finally, since this won’t happen in a short period, the more we go “outside” of the ethereum world, the more we should be aware of the possibility to just have a sentiment checks to understand if we are still going in a direction that is aligned with the vision of the dao.

---

Tally votings

Subsidy Fund Proposal from the ADPC

Vote: For
Confirming my previous snapshot vote

Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative

Vote: For

@JoJo

Changed my stance in Tally, and voted “for” for this initiative. I think Lino and his team were able, between snapshot and tally, to address some of the concerns above; the program consolidated and the live presentation in Bruxelles was quite convincing. Curious to see the end result of this first pilot program, not only for the deliverable per se, but also to better understand how the team wants to work on this topic.