Update on what we’ve been up to from July 2024 to September 2024
Voting
[Snapshot] Approval of STEP committee recommendations - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal, trusting the STEP council’s judgment of the recommended allocations.
[Snapshot] Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of implementing a predictable cadence for proposals to go to Snapshot or Tally.
[Tally] Subsidy Fund Proposal from the ADPC - Voted FOR
After supporting the proposal during temp-check, we also voted in its favor during the onchain vote.
[Snapshort] Pilot for a Questbook Jumpstart fund for problem definition and DAO improvement - Voted AGAINST
We voted against the proposal because we believed its scope was too vague and we were uncertain of the things we’d be funding from such a fund.
[Snapshot] Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) Council Voting
We participated in the elections for the GCP council and voted in favor of 3 individuals. You can find the list of individuals we supported as well as our rationale here.
[Tally] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative - Voted FOR
We supported the proposal during temp-check and extended our support during the onchain vote for the same reasons.
[Snapshot] Furucombo’s Misuse of Funds - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of banning Furucombo because we deemed their conduct to be suspicious. However, we also raised the point that there should be a way for Furucombo to appeal the ban.
[Snapshot] Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain - Voted AGAINST
We voted against the proposal to expand Arbitrum’s license outside of Ethereum chains as we believe it’s a mistake to do so and could potentially support Ethereum’s direct competitors, some of which are centralized and permissioned.
[Snapshot + Tally] Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO - Voted FOR
After careful consideration and extensive discussions with Entropy and other stakeholders in the DAO, we decided to vote in favor of funding them. We also voted in favor during the subsequent onchain vote.
[Tally] ArbOS 31 “Bianca” (Stylus, RIP-7212 Support, Nova Fee Router) - Voted FOR
We supported each individual upgrade (Stylus, RIP-7212 support, and Nova fee router) during the temp check, and we also extended our support in the onchain vote.
[Tally] Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS) - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal to introduce MSS after we supported it during the temp-check as well.
[Snapshot + Tally] ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal after extensive and careful consideration and multiple discussions with Tally. We also voted in favor during the subsequent onchain vote.
[Snapshot] Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains - Voted FOR
We supported the proposal during temp-check while also pointing out that we’d like to see more discussion on the topic before supporting an onchain vote.
[Snapshot] ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard - Voted AGAINST
We voted against the proposal because we didn’t understand the target audience for the proposed dashboard. We did however encourage Curia to seek funding through other avenues.
[Snapshot] Should the DAO Default to using Shielded Voting for Snapshot Votes? - Voted FOR
Although we did not have a strong opinion on the topic, we voted in favor for the sake of experimenting.
[Snapshot] An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal even though it was ultimately defeated due to a hiccup with the process.
[Snapshot] ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Voted FOR
We expressed our support for the proposal directionally but pointed out that there are several things to figure out before being comfortable voting in the proposal’s favor onchain.
[Snapshot] Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System - Voted FOR
Extending the Delegate Incentive Program for two months until we implement a new one made sense, so we voted in favor of the proposal.
[Snapshot] Strategic Treasury Management on Arbitrum - Voted AGAINST
Since we were unsure about the concept of treasury management in and of itself, we voted against the proposal. For a more in-depth rationale, please see our original response to the proposal.
[Snapshot] Should the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies? - Voted FOR ‘Disclosure Policy’ & ‘Responsible Voting’
We voted in favor of ‘Disclosure Policy’ and ‘Responsible Voting’ as we saw the value in having clear rules established.
[Snapshot] Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship - Voted FOR Panda Partners
We’re generally supportive of initiatives that benefit the entire Ethereum ecosystem and as such we voted in favor of supporting the Attackathon on the ‘Panda Partners’ level.
[Snapshot] (Replace Oversight Committee with MSS) Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon - Voted FOR
We were among the people who requested that the oversight committee is replaced with an MSS multisig, so naturally we voted in favor of the proposal.
[Snapshot] STIP-Bridge Operational Budget - Voted FOR
The funds for the operational expenses of STIP-Bridge were earmarked as compensation for the operational responsibilities that were carried out. Since they were, we voted in favor of using the funds to pay contributors.
[Snapshot] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock - Voted FOR
This was an easy vote for us as the proposed change would turn Arbitrum’s ‘Exit Window’ slice in our risk rosette to yellow (currently red), and it would bring Arbitrum one step closer to being classified as ‘Stage 2’. Obviously, we voted in favor.
[Tally] Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Voted FOR
We had previously supported the proposal to bootstrap the first BoLD validator, and therefore we also voted in favor of the onchain execution.
[Tally] Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon - Voted FOR
Having voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check, we also extended our support during the onchain vote. However, we did make it clear that we treated the proposal as an experiment which we’d like to see iterate and improve if we are to continue supporting it.
[Snapshot] ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee Phase II - Voted AGAINST
After careful consideration, we decided to vote against the proposal. There were 3 key reasons that drove our decision which you can read in more detail here.
[Snapshot] LTIPP Extensions (Synthetix, Pyth, and Aave) - Voted AGAINST
We voted against all LTIPP extension (Synthetix, Pyth, and Aave) proposals for the same reason; they went against the spirit of the incentives detox proposal that successfully passed, and it would give an unfair advantage to the protocols over others.
[Snapshot + Tally] Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum - Voted FOR
After reviewing the proposal, we found no reason to vote against it as it simply requested a minor configuration to the bridge contracts to allow for a smooth transition of RARI from L1 to L2. We also voted in favor of the proposal during the subsequent onchain vote.
[Snapshot] Fund the Stylus Sprint - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check, although we did raise some issues that we’d like to see addressed before the onchain vote.
[Snapshot] Terms of Tenure for STEP program manager - Voted FOR Additional Funds
We voted in favor of providing additional funds to cover the entire 1-year tenure of the STEP program manager.
[Snapshot] Proposal to adopt Timeboost, a new transaction ordering policy - Voted FOR and opted for ETH in treasury
After reviewing the proposal, reading ARDC’s comparison of Timeboost to other transaction ordering policies 3, and ARDC’s risk analysis of Timeboost, we voted in favor of adopting Timeboost and opted to collect bids in ETH in the treasury.
[Snapshot] ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Voted FOR Online Event
We voted in favor of the proposal but our support was conditional and limited only to an online event.
[Snapshot] GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity - Voted AGAINST
After reviewing the impact of previous GovHacks as well as the current proposal, we voted against having an additional event.
[Snapshot] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget - Voted FOR
Following extensive discussion both internally, but also with the Foundation, we decided to vote in favor of the proposal.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program - Voted FOR v1.5
We voted in favor of the proposal, opting for v1.5, which introduced some qualitative criteria. We think the proposed program is an improved iteration of the previous one, but we did raise some points we’d like to see addressed before the onchain vote.
[Tally] Security Council Nominee Selection
We participated in the nominee selection phase of the Security Council elections and voted in favor of 10 nominees.
[Snapshot] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal since not having Infura’s Nova validator was an operational oversight.
[Snapshot] An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO - Voted FOR
As we did with the previous temp-check for this proposal which was defeated due to a procedural error, we voted in favor of the proposal.
[Snapshot] Research on context and retention - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal as it was a very simple ask for permission to access data that is already public.
Discussions
Incentives Detox Proposal
We drafted and submitted the RFC for the incentives detox proposal, which proposed a temporary pause of incentive programs for 3 months to reflect on previous programs and create a new one based on learnings.
Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
We participated in the discussion around the creation of a DAO Events Budget for 2025 and commented under the proposal to express our views.
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.