1. [Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb , @Euphoria , and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx ), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
Our reason remains the same as in previous extension requests of Pyth and Synthetix. This extension comes during the “Detox of Incentives” phase and also puts other projects at a disadvantage, especially those who didn’t know extensions could be requested.
We believe that the right course of action for now would be to return the unused funds to the DAO. Following the original LTIPP timeline will allow us to assess the program’s effectiveness properly and make better decisions for future grants and incentive programs.
2. Constitutional AIP: Proposal to adopt Timeboost, 4. a new transaction ordering policy Voted - Collect Bids in ETH to treasury Reason -
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb , @Euphoria , and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx ), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal with the option to collect bids in ETH to the treasury.
We believe this is a well-researched and well-thought-out proposal that can only be properly evaluated through real-world data. Timeboost offers a unique way for ArbitrumDAO to capture value from MEV activity while having a minimal effect on regular users.
We believe that generating revenue should be a key focus for the DAO’s long-term sustainability, and Timeboost provides a good mechanism for this. Collecting bids in ETH keeps future options open, unlike burning ARB tokens. Once we have real-world data, we will be better positioned to decide how to handle the revenue, whether through distribution or token burning.
3. Terms of Tenure for STEP program manager Voted in order - #1 Additional funds for one year#2 6 months from available funds#3 New election at $86,581 per year#4 Abstain#5 Liquidation of RWAs and STEPReason -
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb , @Euphoria , and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx ), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal and support providing additional funds to cover the entire 1-year tenure.
After investing significant time and effort into setting up the STEP program and electing a program manager for a year, it would be a mistake to risk losing that progress for the sake of a shorter-term contract. Although we recognize this situation arose due to an operational mistake, steps should be taken to avoid such errors in the future.
We have voted in the following order.
4. ArbitrumDAO Off-site Voted in order - #1 Online event#2 Drop idea and do nothing#3 Abstain#4 IRL/conference/no scholarships#5 IRL/conference/scholarships#6 IRL/separate/scholarships#7 IRL/separate/no scholarshipsReason -
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb , @Euphoria , and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx ), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal with a focus on an online event this time.
If the DAO is collaborating online and remotely, meeting offline once or several times a year for strategizing makes little sense. In-person events tend to become more exclusive, and this is a time to include rather than exclude people, especially for critical discussions like strategy.
The term ‘high-context’ participants is unclear and feel exclusive. A DAO that is still in the process of strategizing doesn’t necessarily have participants with more context than others. Anyone with the right intent can get up to speed quickly.
Similarly, focusing only on the Top 50 delegates based on monetary value is also limiting. There are individuals with equal, if not more, interest and skills who may not have high voting power but are equally valuable contributors.
With all that in mind, we still believe that the requested budget, even for the facilitation of an online event, is too high relative to the value we believe we’ll be able to get from it. We can’t afford to spend ~$10k per online workshop. While we understand there’s a cost for planning and facilitating, it should be way lower than what is asked right now.
Furthermore, we’d like to note that the success of this meeting depends largely not only on the organizer putting enough effort to make the event successful but also on the participants - even the best-facilitated event will not be fruitful if not enough right people attend it or if those people are not prepared enough to use this time efficiently.
We agree with L2Beat on both points. While the event itself has been the focus, there’s not enough attention on getting the right people involved.
We are voting for the proposal in the following order:
7 Likes