The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.
Rationale
I want to say that I appreciate all the effort that went into drafting this proposal. I understand that the whole STIP was a bit chaotic, so I really like seeing a proposal that aims to make its successor more efficient, but I’m not sure if this is the best way.
First of all, I feel like relying so heavily on a council could end up centralizing Arbitrum’s governance a bit too much, especially if it’s related to protocol incentives since they are essential for the development of the ecosystem. Because, even though I understand that it was a burden for most delegates, I think that we could just give them more time to review proposals (with longer review windows and feedback periods). This, coupled with compensations for delegates, could alleviate the burden.
Replacing delegates with a council might be more efficient in a way, but it also takes away value from governance - if I’m not wrong, many protocols started engaging with the DAOs governance thanks to STIP.
Second, I think some expenses are a bit too high and might not be necessary. I understand that the DAO has a massive treasury but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be a bit more careful with it ~ excluding the incentives, there’s an additional 815,000 ARB requested for various purposes, this amounts to roughly $1.7M. For example, I think that the program shouldn’t include the role of the advisor since, ideally, with a longer timeframe, feedback should come from the delegates + it would encourage protocols to learn the DAO governance process. As a side note, I noticed that @SEEDGov applied to this role, but I just wanted to state that our delegation decides independently from the organization.
Conclusion
Eventhough I like the direction towards this proposal is going, I think we have to develop a program that seeks more involvement from the delegates and relies less on centralized committees.