This was an extremely conflicted vote for me.
I decided to vote in favour.
I can say that the feedback from Entropy helped me shape my own view here.
I strongly agree with Matt, Sam & Co.: to be blunt, we canāt keep going as we are now. We are in a spending review period across the whole industry. In Arbitrum specifically, we have seen several initiatives not being renewed or being shut down, with potentially more to follow.
The Foundationās request is somewhat of an outlier here. While I do see that the total amount requested, $45M, is below the $65M from the previous two years, we have:
- a request that is generally extremely high on an absolute basis, especially on the ARB side, and very heavy on the ATM side, basically cancelling out more than what we have earned so far since inception;
- a discount that, while I am sure reflects greater efficiency from the Foundation, does not take into account what AF has spent over the years as a cost related to OCL, which, as we see above, might potentially come to the DAO at a later stage for further funding.
Effectively, we cannot know whether this is simply a discount, or whether AF has renegotiated the deal with OCL in a way that means the cost will now be accrued directly by the DAO, with no intermediary.
I do think we need the Foundation today. I think about the scenario of not funding them now, having them devise a plan over the next 30 to 60 days, and then having them come back to us with a plan to further cut headcount, events, and partnerships, beyond what has already happened. I am unsure whether the following 12 months would be better or worse for Arbitrum in that scenario.
I do think we have to fight today to maintain the market share and mindshare we have, especially with new ecosystems emerging on top of us and absorbing liquidity, reputation, and opportunities, such as Hyperliquid.
This is why, like Entropy, I am in favour of this financing today. But I do expect the Foundation to spend the year:
- continuing to grow the pie for us;
- cutting spending that, one year from now, will be much more difficult to approve than it is today.
There would be a lot to say here. A lot to say about the amount of ARB currently held by the Foundation, how it has been spent in the past, and how we will see these 23M ARB being deployed. There would also be more to say about KPIs. I do agree that a good part of Arbitrumās success is also due to the Foundation, but I am also mindful of the risk of falling into a āpost hoc, propter hocā mentality, especially with unclear transparency reports that should, in my opinion, be better addressed in the future.
All of this, though, is secondary to the overarching thesis / idea I mentioned above.
My expectation is that, one year from now, we will come back to a new request with:
- clearer transparency reports compared to what we have historically had;
- better disclosure of both successes and failures;
- better coordination with the different AAEs. We have started now, also thanks to OpCo and with AF/OCL members being involved, but it is a long road;
- a leaner budget, since what we are granting today likely cannot be granted again one year from now.
I am also expecting, hoping, and believing in a Foundation that will keep leading the ecosystem with even greater credibility, and that will continue to generate, in coordination with OCL, Entropy, and OpCo, success stories like Robinhood and others that are coming our way.
Onwards