JoJo
August 27, 2024, 9:26am
6
September 2024 voting Snapshot votings Vote: For
yellow is a good color. Voting for.
Vote: Abstain
As one of the contributors to the STIP, I am voting “abstain”.COI policy approved and voted by the DAO doesn’t necessarily stop people to vote for themself, in a situation like this it makes sense to do so regardless, hoping that the DAO does indeed find valuable the contribution that me, SEEDGov, CastleCapital, Matt_StableLab and AlexLumley gave to this initiative.
Vote: For
confirming the Tally vote here. I think this is a very cool experiment, to have a distributed delegated. We will see the frequency of votes and the alignment of votes. I think is worth seeing the results, and I think it would help addressing the rising quorum since my expectation is a 100% presence in all votings, both in snapshot and tally.
voting in favour for the addition to the MSS to the program in the snapshot vote. As part of the MSS i am glad projects are getting onboarded, the more the better, to save costs and increase security.
Vote: For
Strongly voting “for” on this proposal.
ADPC created one of a kinda entity in arbitrum and I think in crypto in general, and goes in what I think is an extremely good direction for high decentralized orgs like our dao: bridge well known framework and way to solve problems from more traditional industries to ours.
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel everytime, we can easily adapt what already exists in professional world into crypto, with a tailoring for the specific tools and needs we have, and this is what is happening here in my opinion.
I also like the expantion in scope, and I partially share the concern of @Frisson about it potentially be a big too big as workload; at the same time, knowing the parties involved, I think they can pull it off.
As a final note, in this case, like in the stylus sprint , I am strongly against any new election. While I think there could be others that potentially have the knowledge to move this forward (even tho 90% of the lawyerish force of arbitrum is in the parties above), even just the handover, and the reshape of vision, would literally eat on the whole mandate time wise with suboptimal results.
Vote: Against
Going back to the snapshot, as for the synthetix application, I am, unfortunately, voting against it, as well as the other extention requests in Arbitrum. To quote my previous answer:
I would have normally been in favour if it wasn’t for the detox proposal just recently presented, and passed, in our DAO; but that proposal is an extremely important signal about 1) trying to see what happens to our chains with no incentives 2) give the time to the DAO to best reflect how to weaponize these programs in future. There is also the secondary point, not necessarily as important but indeed important, about competitive advantages of protocols asking for an extention versus protocols that just finished in LTIPP or about to finish in STIP.
In here we have a different situation, which is a potential usage of funds for an infra product, so I could see the merit of the extention. But the mix of the detox proposal + the fact that most of the leftover funds are tied, in my understanding, to lower costs than expected, means that the only real reason to keep Pyth in an extention would be to facilitate his role in Arbitrum. This is something we could advocate for Synthetix and Aave as well, even if their role is different. Again, the vote of the DAO for the detox proposal is more important, and should just be respected by participants.
Vote: Against
Thank you for this detailed feedback.
I am, unfortunately, voting against this and all the other extention requests in Arbitrum.
But I also want to add a few things. I really feel you about first, the excitement of participating to this program, and then the constant small delays of integrations and tech development that turn out to be eating more and more week over week on the timeline, up to the point you had to come here to ask for this extention; I have seen this happening, and even in the protocols i work for we had to take hard and complex decisions due to delay of partners’ integrations.
Finally, i want to commend the effort the synthetix team made to come to arbitrum. You decided to go for a specific push in our chain, with an ad-hoc application and obviously a lot of work behind it, on a product level, strategic level and marketing level, and what did happen is indeed unfortunate but also something quite common in the tech world. For this reason, in the next program, I will be one your stronger supporter fwiw.
Vote: For
Seconding blockworks, gauntlet and others, support in a proposal that in future can potentially be replicated and tailored to basically allows the onboarding of more protocols over time in arbitrum.
this proposal makes sense. Voting in favour: pushing stylus, from adoption and marketing standpoint, can only increase the strength of technical positions of Arbitrum as a chain, which hopefully will also reflect on the economics down the road. Stylus is a strategic advantage we have.
Now, a few points worth discussing.@Entropy .UAGP program , potentially here alternative a 4 weeks application + feedback with a 4 weeks evaluation, and repeat for 3 seasons, covering the first 6 months of the program. And this would also mean putting at budget a little bit more than what was posted due to operations extending for further 4 months.
evaluating diversity of application from a higher point of view
keeping consistency in modus operandi of reporting and communication
being the ultimate decision maker, in case of disagreement of the commission, on changes from protocols’ developments along this long year, non expected outcomes from protocols and other circumstances that are just too heterogeneous to be mentioned here.could be that program manager, but I also see you listed as advisor; might be worth clarifying.
On the milestones:
This makes a lot of sense theoretically but might just not be practically doable based on previous experience. You should try to integrate this in the template/framework for protocols, but you should also be flexible to other type of structures, because is extremely likely that other needs will arise.
As a final note, i am TOTALLY in favour in a non election type of the committee. In general, while a dao should be open for roles, there are several situation in which the knowledge to be part of a committee is just too vertical that elections are just detrimental. This program, and the ADPC , are clear examples.
Hope this helps, and sorry for not providing this feedback earlier before the snapshot.
Vote: Against
Voting against. Let me first report a previous feedback released for synthetix, and still relevant here.
I am, unfortunately, voting against this and all the other extention requests in Arbitrum.
But I also want to add a few things. I really feel you about first, the excitement of participating to this program, and then the constant small delays of integrations and tech development that turn out to be eating more and more week over week on the timeline, up to the point you had to come here to ask for this extention; I have seen this happening, and even in the protocols i work for we had to take hard and complex decisions due to delay of partners’ integrations.
And I’ll be honest, I am quite said of not seeing the full fledged program about GHO going live in arbitrum, especially after being the LTIPP advisor for AAVE. I can see value + utility for the ecosystem.
My strong advice here, is prepare in the next quarter everything that is needed, from a tech/audit standpoint on the GHO ecosystem. Whatever the next iteration of the program is going to be, I don’t see AAVE not being part of it as one of the main lender, and not being part of it as stablecoin facilitator in the ecosystem, including GHO. I think it will be a no brainer a collaboration between arbitrum and AAVE, also on the diffusion and adoption of gho and increase of stablecoin liquidity in the ecosystem.
Vote: Collect bids in ETH to treasury
Confirming my previous take, I am voting for collecting the fees in eth.
While the buyback and burn would create some sort of upward pressure, this will be dwarfed by the unlocks; considering we are on track to also approve the arb staking proposal, to me it makes more sense, for now, to just collect everything in eth.
I can also see the dao going back to this decision after a few years to reasses.
Vote: Earmark Funds from existing, Have a new elections, Run the program for only 6 months, Liquidate the program, Abstain
exploiting for shortening reasons the response from Pennsylvania University cause i voted in the same order (earmark funds, new elections, only 6 months, liquidation of the program, abstain)
Goal is to find the funds to pay Steakhouse for a whole year, to me anything else is unacceptable knowing the effort that was done to create this program growth oriented. Let’s find the money to keep the program running please.
PS please, for the future, write the options in the snapshot in a better way. I understand that there are characters limitations, but a simple option a / b / c etcetera with an explanation of each option in the test would make everything clearer. Took me a few minutes to understand how to properly vote in the way I wanted.
Vote: IRL/conference/no scholarships
Voting as per the below
I’m in favour of meeting people, but with a series of caveat.
Would also like to add that while i can generally support the idea, a potential tally vote to me is dependent on the initiatives that will be moved forward by the GovHack team, that I would favour over this one due to the previous track record.
Vote: FOR
This is proposal is something I am really glad came in our forum.
It has several stuff that either we did succesfully in the past (the govhackaton) or stuff that naturally came in during previous govhacks that the dao and delegates ned (core day).
I told this klauss in a call, when people come to govhack, since it is the first event that gathers people in the arbitrum ecosystem, it naturally transforms (also) in a BD event, with delegates jumping between helping teams and tracks vs personal meetings with others; but this latter part happens without a dedicated time and space, thus creating and inefficient situation.
While I understand that some might ask themself why the addition of core, this is the exact reason: satisfy a need that happens naturally cause of the dynamics described above.
Some more details are likely needed to lay down the proper rules of this new part, but these can be decided together in the next 2 months.
Full support to this initiative, especially cause is quite contained in price.
consistently with this, voting a strong FOR on this initiative.
I really appreciated GovHack at ETHcc, and Klauss was able to go around and gather feedbacks on how to improve.similar initiatives currently in discussion/vote .
Vote: FOR DIP 1.5
After all the feedbacks here, feedbacks in the call and private feedbacks, voting “For” on DIP 1.5.
Is gonna be a mess, seed is gonna have the hardest time of their life, and I am pretty sure a lot of folks will initially complain about having that 0.75 points more in this or that category.
But often times than not the hardest path is also the path that leads to the biggest growth, and I think evaluating not only the votes, but a big part of the arbitrum governance life, is what we need. We literally need to put all delegates in the position of interacting, and interact in a meaningful way.
A few things here
we are going to have to obviously trust the seed gang here. I won’t quote Uncle Ben here. But you know where i am going with this
that said, if I had to trust one delegate on a massive program like this, it would be seed. Having had the pleasure to work with some of them, and meet a few of them, I see them as a force of good that is pushing more than others for adoption of crypto not to speculate but to solve specific problems. I quote this because is easy for some, as we saw in the call, to think that there could be too much power concentration. While is true, is also necessary since a public mechanism for evaluation would be not only extremely unfeasible, but won’t be consistent over time. TLDR: I trust seed latam, a lot, to run this in the fairiest way possible
As suggested, I think the spread of costs between 1.5 and 1.1 of around 40k is too small. We could find ourself to have a (positive) explosion of delegates presence between this program, the staking program and all the initiatives we have. The amount of work is almost linear with the amount of delegates we have, and since this program is a 1y long one my strong suggestion is to add a clause, on the tally vote, for which that if we will be above X amount of delegates, they might ask for some further funds to cover opex, which is mostly manual labour
in the previous iteration, seed if i recall was not able to enroll in the program to avoid conflicts. I think this be removed for 1.5. To make the participation fair and agnostic, the evaluation of seed governance could be only about the amount of votes, onchain and offchain, plus call particpation. for the rest of the evaluation, subject to interpretation, it could just be the median of the score of all delegates involved in the program, or maybe the median of the second lower half.
Yes, in all of this I am saying that seed should be able to ask more and enroll in the program, thus incresing overall cost. While aware of this, I also understand the enormous amount of workload this program will bring to their shoulders, being a cow that reads all the posts and comments in the forum: if i imagine myself not only reading all, but also evaluating all, and knowing how much this program will probably be relevant for the arbi staking proposal, I really want for seed to have all the ability to do the best job possible here. And here it means being able to onboard all the people they think are needed to have a consistent evaluation over the next 12 months.
Vote: FOR
I am voting “for” on this proposal.
As stated above, I think the idea of the foundation having a fund to foster growth for specific deals, is what is needed, especially for orbit expantion.
I partially second the voices of folks calling for more transparency; I also understand that not all details should be disclosed and, in some cases, some details can’t be disclosed due to either specific agreements or just business logic.
So, while the above could be a bit off topic here, would be a solution similar to the one adopted for the GCP be useful?@Djinn for confirmation here). I don’t think we should gun necessarily for this specific type of dynamic, nor I do think the DAO should claw back funds from the foundation. But a certain degree of oversight/collaboration, even if under NDA, could be useful, and in general could be a good tool to leverage the operation of DAO and foundation. This council can indeed steer the convo of dao’s initiative toward specific ones that would benefit on going deal of the foundation, and the council could be part of the transparency semestral report (or, add an indepedent section all together).
I am spitballing ideas here, and I am open to a feedback that is: all of this is just nonsense, is non applicable, doesn’t solve problems, does only introduce friction.
But since the foundation is coming to the dao, and since we should enhance the synergy between the dao and the foundation in general because we all have the same goal, this initiative could be a start.
Tally votings Vote: For letting foundation run the first Bold validator and financing potential third parties .
Confirming previous snapshot vote ; I also think the new details on the technical implementation (the unistaker module, ability to introduce a small timelock and others) make a lot of sense.
Vote: For
Vote: Against
Vote: For
confirming the Tally vote here. I think this is a very cool experiment, to have a distributed delegated. We will see the frequency of votes and the alignment of votes. I think is worth seeing the results, and I think it would help addressing the rising quorum since my expectation is a 100% presence in all votings, both in snapshot and tally.
voting in favour for the addition to the MSS to the program in the snapshot vote. As part of the MSS i am glad projects are getting onboarded, the more the better, to save costs and increase security.
Security council Vote: Dedaub (100% of the weight)
I am a poor cow with just about 50k votes.
For this reason, i decided in this round to just push for Dedaub.
Not only they are an audit firm but, more than others, thanks to the ADPC program, are more entrenched in the arbitrum ecosystem. I think we should double down on people and entities committed in our blue chain, and I think that their experience plus their tailored role in here will be helpful in the security council.