Happy new year!
Update on what we’ve been up to from October 2024 to December 2024
Voting
[Tally] Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal - Voted AGAINST
Following our vote against the proposal during temp-check, we also voted against the proposal during the onchain vote. While we appreciate the work the ADPC has done, we did not see enough justification to allocate the requested budget to continue the initiative.
[Tally] Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal after having supported the proposal during temp-check and opting to sponsor at the ‘Panda Partners’ tier.
[Tally] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock - Voted FOR
After reviewing the executable to confirm that the changes match the described modifications, we voted in favor of the proposal. You can find our full rationale here.
[Tally] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget - Voted FOR
Following our favorable vote during temp-check after extensive discussions both with the Foundation but also with other delegates, we voted in favor of the onchain proposal too.
[Snapshot] LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections - Voted ‘DO NOT FUND’
The reason we decided to vote against the proposal had more to do with the way the bounties were structured (retroactive, and seemingly arbitrary) and less so with the individual applications.
[Snapshot + Tally] Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 - Voted FOR
After extensive discussion with Entropy, the Foundation, and other stakeholders, we voted in favor of the proposal. We also supported it during the subsequent onchain vote.
[Tally] ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal - Voted AGAINST
Although we initially voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check, we ultimately voted against it during the onchain vote. While we did believe in the concept directionally, we were unsure that the outcomes of such an offsite would actually be the ones intended.
[Snapshot] GCP Council Reconfirmation Votes (Tim Chang + John Kennedy) - Voted FOR in both
We voted in favor of both Tim’s and John’s reconfirmation in the GCP after having the opportunity to see them in action and being satisfied with their performance.
[Snapshot + Tally] (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective - Voted FOR
While initially skeptical about renewing the concept of the ARDC at the time it was proposed, we ended up voting in its favor after managing to find middle ground in the way it was structured. We also voted in favor of the proposal during the subsequent onchain vote.
For a more comprehensive breakdown of our rationale, please see these comments here and here.
[Tally] Fund the Stylus Sprint - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal as we found the initiative to be a good way to introduce more developers to Stylus.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program - Voted AGAINST
While we weren’t against the concept of a token swap, we failed to see enough justification for the proposed initiative and therefore voted against it.
[Tally] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program - Voted FOR
Following our support during temp-check, we also voted in favor of the proposal during the onchain vote.
[Tally] Security Council Elections
We reviewed all candidates for the Security Council elections and cast our vote before the voting power decay started. You can read more about our selection and rationale here.
[Tally] Adopt a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalize Operations - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal, even though we are aware -as we pointed out- that we’ll probably need to figure some things along the way.
[Snapshot + Tally] Treasury Management v1.2 - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal after discussing it extensively with Entropy and other Arbitrum stakeholders. We also voted in favor of the proposal during the subsequent onchain vote.
[Snapshot] Restitution For Extensively Delayed ArbitrumDAO Minigrant Winners - Voted AGAINST
While we understood the frustration of the proposers, we were against the idea of setting a precedent that the price fluctuations of ARB-denominated grants/payments should be restituted by the DAO. As a result, we voted against the proposal.
[Snapshot + Tally] Hackathon Continuation Program - Voted FOR without onchain component
We discussed the proposal with Daniel extensively and decided to vote in its favor while opting out of the proposed onchain component. After addressing some of our concerns post-temp-check, we also voted in favor of the proposal during the subsequent onchain vote.
[Snapshot] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum? - Voted FOR Researching only within Arbitrum
Even though we weren’t fully confident in the utility of the proposed research, we believed that just interviewing builders on Arbitrum would be a net positive. Given that, we voted in favor of the proposal.
[Snapshot] Designing and operating the reporting and information function - Voted AGAINST
Although we’ve had several discussions with Alex about the proposal, and we believe the work proposed is needed, we decided to vote against it since the associated costs were not, in our eyes, justified for the amount of work.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp - Voted AGAINST
We voted against the proposal as we believe it’s not the right time to venture into onboarding new participants to the DAO, even though we’re directionally in favor of the idea.
[Snapshot] ARDC V2 Elections (Supervisory Council / Research / Security / Risk)
We reviewed all applications for each of the seats in the ARDC and cast our vote in the elections. You can find our selections as well as our rationale behind them here.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3 - Voted FOR with 4 domains
We voted in favor of renewing the program with 4 domains for the time being while taking the opportunity to express some concerns before the onchain vote.
[Snapshot] Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP) - Voted FOR
Treating the proposed MVP as a working document that will be iterated in the next 6-12 months after validating how it works, we voted in favor of the proposal.
[Snapshot] Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025 - Voted FOR without POAP
With a proven track record from the last ETH Bucharest, we decided to vote in favor of the proposal to sponsor the 2025 ETH Bucharest event while opting out of the use of POAP due to the cost.
Discussions
[ARDC] Final Report
As the DAO Advocate for the ARDC we put together a final comprehensive report on the ARDC’s performance on occasion of the conclusion of the ARDC’s term.
ArbiVerse Bangkok
We attended the ArbiVerse event in Bangkok that took place during DevCon.
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.