JoJo Delegate Communication Thread

[JoJo]

August 2024 voting

---

---

Snapshot votings

Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) Council Voting

Vote: CJ, David Bolger, Coinflip, equal weights

@JoJo

I’m placing my chips on the following candidates:

1. coinflip: doesn’t need to many presentation, it is likely one of the best figure for oversight on behalf of the DAO in one of the most novel and important initiative we have spinned up in Arbitrum
2. DavidBolger: not only deal with gaming partnership, he is part of Offchain Labs. One of the biggest perk of this choice imho is that we get Offchain closes to our DAO activity
3. CJ.Bzdewka: his experience in private equity and him being part of governance of Treasure makes him the perfect candidate with the perfect mix of skillset.

Few notes: there are A LOT of good candidates here, was quite hard to nail down a choice and was only possible since I have followed closely these candidates. My main choices are about introducing the “dao” element in the GCP election, since the 2 already nominated (Andrew Green and Tim Chang) have strong Growth And Venture experience.

Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO

Vote: For

@JoJo

For the reasons above, and all the reasons i posted previously, I am voting “for” on this proposal.

I can see why some, like GFXlabs, can really focus on the overall cost, and tries to cut it through a shorter mandate + wave of exclusivity. It can make sense, from their point of view, and I am glad we also have in the debate voices that can bring a different opinion on the table.

But personally, in this vote, I am focusing on the cost we will face as a DAO of not having a leadership role, even if temporary, in a pivotal moment for our ecosystem in which we are moving toward even more important initiative.
In the last few months, and at EthCC, entropy has shown how they can effectively cover that leadership role. It doesn’t mean that they will have to do it always and in perpetuity; I actually hope they will be the enabled who gives us the tool to have other entities able to lead (some) initiatives.

But again, not having them, here and now, not having them help in the next few months, will likely cost us way more than the amount they are asking here to give a 1y exclusivity deal to our DAO.

ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance

Vote: For

@JoJo

I’m voting “for” on this proposal.

As stated before, I really praise Frisson for being able to put together this many conflicting feedbacks together: he was able to find the perfect solution by saying: we build the skeleton, let’s make the dao fill it (amount of rewards, source of rewards, active delegate definitions etc).
I think this will be an initial powerful signal for markets, and also a way to increase governance. While the 2 don’t necessary belong together, I am personally fine with that.

BUT, I have a big caveat to this: we need to create a definition of active delegates that doesn’t hinder protocol representations. One of the potential byproduct of certain parameters could be, for example, that users might redelegate from protocols to others just because the protocols are active, but not as much for the metrics of the program, to allow users to get the yield. This can happen because for example they don’t comment too much on the forum, or don’t vote all proposals.
While we want to obviously incentivise the participation of protocols in governance, we also have to remember that the main job of protocols is making arbitrum a great place for users through developing dapps and other stuff. Let’s avoid to kill the representation they currently have.

To be more detailed, this is the current situation.

The current top 4 delegates, making a total of more than 60M votes (or between 33 to 50% of the average amount of votes we have in each proposals) are from non protocol type of entity.
And don’t get me wrong: l2beat, gauntlet, olimpio, wintermute, they are all great delegates well aligned with arbitrum. But we can’t imho create a system that would lower even more protocols’ representation in our governance. It would be a bad outcome.

Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains

Vote: Against

@JoJo

I am voting “Against” this initiative.

Nothing wrong with it as a general idea, I appreciate the intent, but I would like first to elaborate on what AlexLumley posted:

@AlexLumley

Why is this Orbit chain data so important for the DAO? I don’t understand why it is important for the DAO to have this data? Will this cause more people to switch to the Arbitrum techstack? Will it improve our Orbit chain incentive programs? Simply having “data” is not enough, it needs to go towards our business objectives.

While I think this could be valuable data, I don’t think it would be valuable now, at least not until orbit chains take a big market share. As a consequences, it feels like the current tools and info instruments we have now to evaluate tvl, data, txs, are more than enough for something that will be (hopefully) extremely important in future, but not prominent in the short term.
Adding to that, the fact that davidgarcia just posted that the Foundation is finalizing agreements to index and distribute data to me is just a confirmation that is too soon for this initiative. We could be easily see more dashboard and services like this born after data is available, with different costs, different use cases and different outcomes

ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard

Vote: For

@JoJo

I am voting “FOR” on this proposal.

I share the concern of gauntlet and maxlomu about potential overlap with other initiatives; but, I will be honest, this is also the reason why we should likely have another source of truth about delegation, voting, activity and all things related to arbitrum governance. The delegate incentive program is becoming a key part of all the DAO, and @seedlatam could potentially see how there could be an integration with this new platform, or even suggest some tailored development to have quality of life upgrade. At the same time, we have live on snapshot the vote about staking arb from Tally. I easily see the potential opposition from some parties, concerned about current karma implementation, and a call for a second source of truth, or just an alternative to their system. And nothing against karma here on my side: just, if delegation and forum activity will become so important, it can make sense to have different parties track governance metrics in different ways.

So Curia you got my support here. But please, when you will move to Tally, try to take in account all of the initiative above, to tailor current key initiatives in our dao; try also to have API implemented in a way that is functional to the data other parties might need as well. We are at the point in which we have a lot of good tools in our dao, but we need to make them work together in a better way

Should the DAO Default to using Shielded Voting for Snapshot Votes?

Vote: For Elections Only

@JoJo

As stated here, voting in favour for elections only.

It would definitely help allievating the “lobbying” problem, which means also newcomers in the dao might have better chances as byproduct of this.
But i am not convinced about other type of voting. As we have seen, most of the discussions on certain topic, for the good or the bad, happen not really in the preliminary weeks/months but only when the vote is live. While I think this is not good, it’s still better than no discussion/engagement at all, and I think shutter vote on non election snapshots would just kill the general engagement for delegates.

Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System.

Vote: For

@JoJo

I obviously support the extention. Being here, provide meaningful comments, steer the narratives toward what we think is best for the dao, requires a lot of energy and time, and the DIP initiatives is definitely needed.

I also agree on keeping the cost the same, despite a drop in arb price. This is the problem we have in any program that is arb denominated: people are happy when price of arb goes up, unhappy when it goes down.
Consistency is key here, and for just a simple 2 months extention keeping everything as is is the best choice to avoid discussion that would better be targeted to a new renewed program.

EDIT just saw the proposal is on snapshot. Voting “for”.

An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO

Vote: Against

@JoJo

Voting against as others. Let’s follow the proper formal path, also maybe in the next discussion we might be able to start to identify what we want to specifically publish as metadata even before going to tally.

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Vote: Abstain

@JoJo

I am voting “abstain” on this proposal.
While I understand is about exploring the possibility, I think we are going a bit outside the general scope of sentiment check, which should be about more scoped an detailed proposals, while in here we are doing the sentiment check of the sentiment check.

For example, if this was a proposal about having a 1 day event at devcon/ethcc/denver as side event, with a venue specifically for all delegates, some specific rooms for top X delegates, and a specific agenda, I would have voted yes. On an event that it outside any major one, I would vote against (i started larping as a cow to avoid flying all over the world, so I personally prefer going in another continent and do more stuff at once) etcetera.

Should the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies?

Vote: FOR: Disclosure Policy, FOR: Responsible Voting Policy

@JoJo

For all the reasons mentioned above, I am voting for “FOR: Disclosure Policy” and “FOR: Responsible Voting Policy”.

I think is definitely good if people disclose their conflicts; is also good if, in a vote that can benefit themself, they also vote in a way that is “responsible”, so for other 2 seats in a 3 seats election etcetera.
I am against the self strict voting policies, especially because protocols for example should be allowed to vote for proposals that directly involve themself. If that was not allowed any user delegating their precious arb to the protocol of their choice would see their delegation being useless, because the protocol can’t vote for his own benefit. A byproduct that I don’t want, among others.

Regardless of my vote, Entropy I am also interested about the specific implementation of this proposal. Knowing it can’t be enforced, should any new vote from now on decide what happens if there is a self voting (with the strict voting policy on) or anything that is against the expected behaviour? How we will specifically handle these conflicts?

Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship

Vote: Panda, Abstain, Against, Unicorn

@JoJo

I am voting “Panda, Abstain, Against, Unicorn”.

There is a merit in sustaining the Ethereum ecosystem initiatives, especially the security oriented ones, and by just participating we will get the audit contest in Arbitrum.
That said, I think the Panda commitment would be enough for this initiative, at least in the first iteration in which is proposed, and we can see in future if we want to double down on potential success.
Also, I still think we should pay the equivalent in Arb in the Tally proposal if it’s ok for the organizers instead of Eth.

---

Tally votings

[Constitutional] ArbOS 31 “Bianca” (Stylus, RIP-7212 Support, Nova Fee Router)

Vote: For
Confirming previous snapshot votes about Stylus and https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-support-rip-7212-for-account-abstraction-wallets-arbos-30/23298/17?u=jojo

Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)

Vote: For

@JoJo

Voting “for” on Tally.

• the initiative will be cost saving for the DAO
• there will likely be an higher security standard and approach to the matter, thanks to a more robust initiative (member already went through a specific workshop)
• I am part of the multisig, so obviously I support it.

Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO

Vote: For

Confirming snapshot vote