Update on what we’ve been up to from April 2024 to June 2024.
Voting
We supported the proposal during temp-check, and, following more conversation with the STEP working group, we decided to vote in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote.
We voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check and participated in the workshop Tally hosted to collect feedback. We voted in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote, understanding that the proposal is to fund Tally to work on upgrades to the governor, without necessarily our vote acting as a ‘pre-approval’ of those changes.
We supported the proposal during temp-check, and since nothing was changed, we also voted for it during the subsequent on-chain vote.
[Snapshot] LTIPP Votes - Voted FOR all applications
After reading the LTIPP Council’s Feedback and cross-checking the applications that received conflicting feedback, we decided to vote in favor of all applications, given that the total requested amount was less than the available budget.
After participating in the nominee selection phase as well, we also voted during the elections. We based our decision on our assessment of the candidate’s combination of technical knowledge, personal reputation, lack of connection to Off Chain Labs & Arbitrum Foundation, as well as their geographical location.
We voted in favor of the proposal by Event Horizon as we value the enthusiastic approach of experimenting with novel concepts in governance. Furthermore, as the DAO Advocate for the ARDC, we assigned OpenZeppelin to conduct a security review of the proposal.
We voted to support DEF and Coin Center with 1,000,000 ARB each in recognition of the positive impact they create for the web3 space. We also voted in favor of the proposal, albeit for a smaller amount as decided by the Snapshot, during the subsequent on-chain vote.
We supported the proposal during the temp-check, and we would have done so for an even larger amount, but at the time, there were concerns in regard to its execution that made us rethink our decision. We ultimately voted for the proposal to run for 1 cohort of 8 weeks.\
While we missed the voting deadline, we commented on the proposal to signal our support for it. We ultimately voted in its favor during the subsequent on-chain vote.
We voted in favor of the proposal because it was well-structured. The only argument against it we could think of was that it was submitted outside of one of the incentive programs. With the LTIPP Council agreeing to include it in their monitoring, we decided to vote in its favor. Unfortunately, we were unable to cast our vote during the on-chain vote, but we did express our support.
After serious consideration, we decided to abstain from the STIP Bridge vote because although we saw the value in the incentive program, the STIP Bridge proposal didn’t introduce any structural changes based on the information we had available through STIP.
As the DAO Advocate for the ARDC, we assigned Blockworks Research to conduct an analysis of the STIP Bridge applications and provide recommendations.
We recognized the need for ADPC to have a security advisor to best execute its mandate to create a subsidy fund for security service providers, and we voted in favor of DeDaub filling that role.
Although not entirely sure how big the potential for M&A in Arbitrum was, we voted in favor of the M&A Pilot Phase so we can better understand the possibilities. We also voted in favor the proposal during the subsequent on-chain vote.
We voted in favor of the proposal by Entropy Advisors to establish the Multisig Support Service (MSS) as we believed it had the potential to save the DAO time and money.
Giving the LTIPP council more freedom to decide who will fulfill the research bounties would reduce the overall friction of the process, so we voted in favor of doing so.
[Snapshot] STIP Bridge Applications
We participated in the series of individual votes for applying protocols to the STIP Bridge whose proposal had been challenged. You can read our decision and rationale for each vote here.
Although it was a proposal that we submitted, there was no conflict of interest with us participating in the vote, and therefore we voted in the proposal’s favor.
Having followed the progress of the GCP proposal since its inception, we decided to vote in its favor during the onchain vote.
We voted in favor of the proposal, but we urged Kwenta to target sidelined users who want to trade on Arbitrum, or traders who are using centralized exchanges. We find any sort of cannibalistic approach (targeting existing users of the protocol on a different chain) to be a net negative. After our concerns were addressed, we were comfortable supporting the proposal during the subsequent on-chain vote.
Having discussed the proposal with WakeUp Labs, and having our feedback taken in mind, we were comfortable voting in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote. Furthermore, Open Zeppelin, in their capacity as a member of the ARDC, conducted a security review of the proposal’s executable that raised no issues.
Having commented with our thoughts under the proposal before it even went to Snapshot, we decided to vote against it.
This proposal would help reduce the friction of sending the fees accrued on Nova to the DAO’s treasury and therefore we voted in its favor.
We voted in favor of Stylus, which can act as a catalyst for a lot of non-solidity developers to come to Arbitrum.
We voted in favor of adopting the widely supported RIP-7212 to ensure we don’t fall behind relative to other L2s.
After individually discussing with all applicants for the role of the STEP Program Manager, we participated in the elections. You can see how we split our vote, as well as our reasoning here.
We voted in favor of the proposal to introduce BoLD since it’s a great step towards increasing Arbitrum’s decentralization and enhancing the security of all Arbitrum chains. Delphi Digital, in their capacity as a member of the ARDC, published a summary of BoLD, and compared it to other dispute mechanisms.
Additionally, we voted in favor of the proposal to bootstrap the first BoLD validator with 4,234 ETH from the treasury, as well as for the Foundation’s request of 900 ETH for operational expenses.
After extensive discussion with the proposal authors, we voted in favor of the pilot phase, but decided to opt out of the IRL event since we were a bit skeptical of the impact it would have.
Although we voted against the proposal, we believe the possibility of using CDP protocols is something that the DAO should explore further. To that end, we have assigned the ARDC to conduct research and a risk assessment of the possible options, including the proposed Treasury Backed Vaults (TBV).
While we do see the value in each of the programs outlined in the proposal, we voted against the proposal as a whole in the form in which it was submitted. Our main concern was the dilution of responsibility, as well as the many variables and moving parts.
We voted against the proposal, although we do believe a hub like the one outlined in the proposal would be helpful for the DAO. Some of the reasons that made us vote against were the amount requested, which we found to be rather inflated, the redundancy of some items, as well as the lack of any KPIs.
Following a successful temp-check for the establishment of MSS, we participated in the elections of the 12 signers. You can see how we split our vote and our rationale here.
Disclaimer: Sinkas nominated himself to participate in the elections for the MSS as an individual and not as a representative of L2BEAT. Since there was no direct or indirect conflict of interest with voting in his favor, we included him in our selection.
Discussions
Hosted Open Governance Call #13, #14, #15 and #16.
You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #13 here.
You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #14 here.
You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #15 here.
You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #16 here.
Arbitrum Foundation Transparency Report Review
We reviewed the transparency report published by the Foundation and provided our feedback on the information contained within. After discussing it further with the Foundation and other delegates, our primary piece of feedback is that we should conduct a ratification vote on Snapshot for the next report.
Onboarding Working Group Experiment
We helped facilitate the creation of the Onboarding Working Group led by @RikaGoldberg, @Ocandocrypto, and @Manugotsuka. The working group applied for a grant from Questbook to finance its operations for 3 months, and their goal was to experiment with onboarding new contributors to Arbitrum DAO.
Arbitrum Fellowships
Following the creation of the Onboarding Working Group (see above), we introduced the concept of Arbitrum Fellowships as a logical next step for people that the OWG onboards. Fellowships are something like a discussion group where
The Incomplete Guide to Submitting a Proposal to Arbitrum DAO
Using our experience as active delegates, we tried to put together an incomplete guide to submitting a proposal to Arbitrum DAO. The guide is an attempt to provide the necessary context for submitting a proposal that goes beyond the format of the proposal itself. It covers information that could otherwise only be figured out by going through the process.
[ARDC] DAO Advocate Communication Update
As per the original proposal’s mandate, we put together monthly updates on the progress of the ARDC, which we published under the DAO Advocate Communication Thread
April Update
May Update
June Update
Clarified Process for Non-Council Recommended Applications to Move to Snapshot
We expressed our opinion when it came to the proposals that were applying for incentives outside of the LTIPP process and participated in the individual votes.
[ARDC] DAO Advocate Discussion with Arbitrum DAO
As the DAO Advocate for the ARDC, we hosted an open call to discuss any matters relevant to the ARDC with delegates and other governance contributors.
Thoughts on the End-Game Perpetual Incentives Program
Having followed and provided feedback to all the different incentive programs, we put together and published our thoughts on how a potential perpetual incentives program could look like.
The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy
We participated in the discussion around the potential creation of an Operating Company (OpCo) for Arbitrum DAO.
Concerns Regarding Possible Misconduct by Synapse with Respect to the Usage of ARB Incentives Allocated Through the STIP
During their retroactive analysis of STIP, Blockworks came across a possible misconduct by Synapse regarding the use of their ARB incentives. We participated in the discussion, which ultimately led to the return of 750,000 ARB to the DAO’s treasury.
Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
We drafted and submitted a constitutional proposal to introduce changes to the structure of the security council so Arbitrum could retain the ‘Stage 1’ designation according to the roll-up maturity framework developed by L2BEAT.
Call to Discuss the Creation of a DAO Budget
We set up, invited delegates to, and hosted a call to discuss the creation a DAO Budget. The call was set up following a request from Entorpy Advisors that ARDC leads the charge in creating a comprehensive budget for the DAO.
The recording of the call can be found here.
Call to Discuss Arbitrum’s Fees and Sequencer Revenue
We set up, invited delegates to, and hosted a call to discuss Arbitrum’s fees and sequencer revenue. The call was set up following the publication of research by Entropy Advisors that illustrated a significant drop in revenue generated by L2 base fees.
The recording of the call can be found here.
L2BEAT Arbitrum Office Hours
Lastly, we want to remind everyone that to further our communication with our constituents and any interested party in the community, we’re hosting recurring Office Hours on Google Meets.
The office hours are held every Thursday at 3 pm UTC/ 11 am EST
During Office Hours, you will be able to reach L2BEAT’s governance team, which consists of @krst and @Sinkas, and discuss our activity as delegates.
The purpose of the office hours is to gather feedback from the people who have delegated to us, answer any questions in regard to our voting activities and rationale, and collect input on things you’d like us to engage in discussions about.
You can add the L2BEAT Governance Calendar in your Google Calendar to find the respective Google Meets links for every call and to easily keep track of the Office Hours, as well as other important calls and events relevant to Arbitrum that L2BEAT governance team will be attending or hosting.