LTI Pilot Program Position Application Thread

[pingus]

Heyyyy. Would it be possible if we use a pre-recorded video? The available slot is 4am in my time zone. Might not be able to do it live. Sorry about that.

[mike_fast]

I feel that Travis Skweres is a suitable fit for the Advisor role.

A) Known for being able to assess complex situations to give in-depth advice.
B) As noted in his application, he has been a long-time in crypto, and worked in various projects that are all relevant to the application.
C) Understands what it is to be a builder, and able to sift between those who are truly into buidl.

[SavvyDAO]

On behalf of @Matt_StableLab - That makes total sense. We will also post all of the videos here.

[1sla.eth]

I will also pre-record

[amanwithwings]

@Matt_StableLab, isn’t the pitching sesssion now?

[Arbdegen]

Safe grants program was a huge failure not able to allocate USD 500K correctly how would you allocate $45 million ARB?

[Matt_StableLab]

Position Pitches Recording

Thanks to everyone who attended yesterday’s pitching session!

Here is the link to the recording

Election is Live

Additionally, the elections are now live!

Vote for the Council here

Vote for the Advisors here

[Midgetwhale]

Castle Labs is flatout lying about their affiliations.

They state this:

Castle Labs is currently supporting Curvance as an Advisory partner surrounding Marketing, Content, and Technical Writing. Members of Castle Labs Governance team are contributors at Rysk Finance and Brahma Fi , both in Marketing, Growth, and BD capacities.

They conveniently fail to mention that several key members are highly involved in the GMX project and their twitter activity proves this.
Here is a twitter thread highlighting the inherent bias of Castle Cap’s founder (but it is not only him who is heavily invested/involved in the GMX project):

https://x.com/derpaderpederp/status/1709669191765094785

Another member of Castle Capital is someone that goes by SniperMonke.
(1) SniperMonke (@SniperMonke01) / X (twitter.com)
He got paid 65k ARB from the GMX grant for his work on GMX ecosystem projects.
See here:
GMX Bi-Weekly Update [17/11/2023] - DAO Grant Programs / Biweekly Updates (STIP) - Arbitrum

[cheekybastard]

Given the recommendation in the LTIPP proposal that Application Advisors should be impartial organizations, can you kindly update the COI(Conflict(s) of interests) disclosure, if need be? Specifically, any COI(perceived or actual) involving @castle__cap multisig members in relation to:
* Venture firm legal entity?
* Currently supporting a zkSync project?
* Protocol grants to multisig members?
* Protocol Affiliate/Referrals? Maybe COI for advising other competing protocols?
* Co-authored a protocol grantee proposal? Maybe COI for advising other competing protocols?

As you mentioned in your application, within the initial STIP, the @castle__cap delegate used your initiative and was also acting as an informal Application Advisor, for example: “We aimed to provide applicants with detailed and actionable feedback on their proposals and give delegates additional context and deeper insights before voting on proposals”. Was all COI(perceived or actual) disclosed for:
* Advising reductions in any specific protocol grant to delegates and protocols?
* Advising against voting For any specific protocol proposal?
* The published and widely distributed analyst STIP scoring table, for giving: “delegates additional context and deeper insights before voting on proposals”?
* If any affiliate/referrals, grantee protocol investments or grantee proposal co-authorship?

Hypothetically, whats your opinion on Application Advisors trading tokens, during STIP rounds, of protocols they are advising?

[CastleCapital]

In light of these concerns, we just wanted to clear a couple of things up re: the structure of our collective.

As clearly stated in our application, this role will be held by ‘Castle Labs’, a separate entity to the Castle Capital community.

@CastleCapital

Background

Name: Castle Labs

Position I am applying for: Application Advisor

TG: @atomist, @theconsequence

Twitter: @castle__cap, @0xatomist, @francescoweb3

Affiliations (Currently I am working with, invested in, etc.): Castle Labs is currently supporting Curvance as an Advisory partner surrounding Marketing, Content, and Technical Writing. Members of Castle Labs Governance team are contributors at Rysk Finance and Brahma Fi , both in Marketing, Growth, and BD capacities.

Castle Labs is a service-based advisory group, separate to the Castle Capital community. Castle Labs and its contributor’s affiliations are clearly stated in our application as quoted above. Currently, the Castle Labs governance team is represented by 0xAtomist and Francescoweb3 only.

The Castle Capital community multisig (castlecapital.eth) referred to above is controlled by the Castle Capital community. This community continuously produces public and free education materials for the space and diligently researches, breaks down, and comments on industry developments.

The wider Castle Capital community (pushing 40 members) contributes and operates across the space, outside of their affiliation with the community. These other ‘members’ have zero representation on the Castle Labs governance team. Furthermore, the activities of some of the community’s members specifically quoted above have no connection to either the Castle Capital community or Castle Labs.

We would also remind all that Application Advisors are not decision-makers able to choose what team is worthy of a grant.

To further remove any lingering concerns, we will also comment directly on the concerns:

@cheekybastard

Specifically, any COI(perceived or actual) involving @castle__cap multisig members in relation to:

• Venture firm legal entity?
• Currently supporting a zkSync project?
• Protocol grants to multisig members?
• Protocol Affiliate/Referrals? Maybe COI for advising other competing protocols?
• Co-authored a protocol grantee proposal? Maybe COI for advising other competing protocols?

• As referenced above, any operations around Castle Capital community and other entities are completely separate from Castle Labs.
• Castle Labs has never advised or supported a project on zkSync. The Castle Community co-hosted an event at DevConnect with a zkSync project that later did not deliver on its promises to investors. The Castle Capital community never had any involvement in this project and was simply referred to them to co-host. Admittedly, the community could have done more in their due diligence in this instance. Please see a statement from the Castle Capital community.
• As referenced above, the Castle Capital community and its multisig are separate from Castle Labs. Despite this, any community member is free to contribute across the space and apply for grants for their work.
• The protocols Castle Labs and its contributors are advising are declared in the application.
• The ‘co-authored’ proposal referred to we can only assume was part of 0xAtomist’s contributions to Rysk Finance, declared an affiliation in the application.

Previous contributions to the STIP process were conducted by the Castle Capital community and ARB delegate group. Due to this being an open forum discussion, affiliations, and conflicts of interest were not stated.

[JoJo]

I partially agree on some of these topics. Partially don’t share them.

All in all i think a public discussion on this “rule” (you can’t vote for yourself or your own people) is needed, in public, in the forum. And not in chats or other places to which users don’t have a direct access.

[juanbug]

@AbdullahUmar and I voted for these individuals as part of the UADP. Our decision came down to those who have had a great track record in Arbitrum as well as have proven themselves in prior grants committees and councils.

Uniswap-Arbitrum Delegate Program (UADP) Communication Thread

Pilot Program Council Elections Vote: 404DAO, GFX, Wintermute, Karpatkey, Bob Rossi Type: Snapshot Pilot Program Advisor Elections Vote: Seed Latam, JoJo, Boardroom Type: Snapshot We’re excited to see the next step of the Pilot Program being voted on, and we’re happy the individual council elections are taking place democratically. We believe these 5 councilors and 3 program advisors are best suited for the first iteration of the role. When choosing our reviewers, we looked for people that h…

[SavvyDAO]

The Savvy DeFi DAO’s Arbitrum Council has decisively voted FOR the LTIP proposal.

Here is our rationale for the selection of the following Council Members:

@SeriousIan (Serious People):

• Valued for previous collaboration with Serious People and the firsthand assistance received from Ian in enhancing Tokenomics.
• Believed to bring substantial value to multiple protocols within the DAO and Arbitrum ecosystem.

@karelvuong (Treasure DAO):

• Recognized for excellent work and development of the Treasure DAO ecosystem.
• Chosen to diversify the council and bring a unique perspective to DAO activities.

@karpatkey:

• Acknowledged for great work in the treasury and sustainability working group
• Selected to contribute diverse skills and expertise to the DAO, expertise across a broad range of DAOs and specifically their governance analyst Coltron.

@Kchen:

• Considered for his investor’s perspective, having invested in various Arbitrum protocols.
• Expected to bring valuable insights to the council.

@therollupco (Andy):

• Chosen to provide a different perspective based on day-to-day experiences with Arbitrum and related protocols.
• Expected to contribute insights into the narrative and operational aspects of the ecosystem.

The selection of council members reflects our deliberate effort to include talented individuals with diverse experiences and perspectives, ensuring a well-rounded and effective governance body for the DAO and Arbitrum ecosystem.

[SavvyDAO]

The Savvy DeFi DAO’s Arbitrum Council has decisively voted FOR the LTIP proposal.

Here is also our rationale for the selection of the following Advisors:

@CastleCapital:

• Selected due to Castle Capital’s demonstrated expertise and valuable contributions to protocols, also Castle Capital’s track record of assistance and support for the ecosystem.

@JoJo:

• Chosen based on firsthand experience through integrations with Jones DAO and witnessing JoJo’s work with quest book delegates.
• Recognized for his helpful contributions.

@SeriousIan (Serious People):

• Voted for Serious People represented by Ian Campbell due to the positive collaboration experience.
• Ian has been instrumental in helping Savvy DAO improve its Tokenomics, showcasing his expertise and potential to benefit other protocols in the DAO and Arbitrum.

The selection of these advisors is rooted in their individual strengths, past contributions, and the belief that their expertise will enhance the success of the LTIP proposal and bring significant value to the broader ecosystem.

[cp0x]

Hello, @SmolPhil
I agree that a representative should always have a voice, otherwise this is not democracy.
Moreover, it is easy to bypass such a restriction by launching an offer from some no-name/

[stonecoldpat]

I had a chat with @Matt_StableLab in regards to the posts about CastleLabs and based on my own judgement, the first question + response is relevant, but the rest of discussion is distracting from this thread. I’ve removed the other posts. Let’s leave it at that and remember – maximum politeness policy is always enforced.

[Curia]

We will be voting in support of Boardroom, JOJO, and SEEDlatam as advisors for the Arbitrum LTI Pilot Program for their respective roles in the Arbitrum LTI Pilot Program. Each candidate brings unique and valuable expertise vital for the program’s success.

Boardroom demonstrates deep engagement with the decentralized governance ecosystem through their governance platform. This platform, instrumental in integrating hundreds of DAOs, showcases Boardroom’s commitment to effective governance and stakeholder engagement, aligning well with Arbitrum’s values.

JOJO, with their extensive knowledge of decentralized finance and governance and their active involvement in DAOs and DeFi protocols (e.g., JonesDAO), provides crucial insights and expertise that are essential for guiding the program in the right direction.

SEEDlatam adds a diverse perspective with their unique insights and active engagement in the Latin American blockchain ecosystem. Their understanding of different market dynamics and community engagement strategies is invaluable for the inclusive growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

We believe that the combination of Boardroom’s governance platform experience, JOJO’s deep understanding of DeFi and DAOs, and SEEDlatam’s regional insights will greatly enhance the LTI Pilot Program, benefiting the broader ecosystem.

Regarding the council position, we will abstain from voting as we are also candidates for this role.

[commons17119]

Hello, I was wondering if there are any saved records of content that has been deleted? The topic of conflict of COI needs to be revisited. This could serve as very useful material.

[krst]

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

After reviewing all applications for both Council members and Application Advisors and taking into account the responsibilities of both roles, we’ve decided we’ll be voting for the following people:

Council:

1. GFX Labs

We are very familiar with the work of GFX Labs from their presence in Optimism’s grant council and we believe they’re a very competent team. We are confident that they are capable of carrying out the responsibilities associated with being a member of the LTIPP council and we’re happy to support them.

2. 404 DAO

So far, 404 DAO has proven to be invested in Arbitrum’s success through their continuous involvement in the DAO’s governance. They bring a wide range of skills to the table which we believe will be useful in the council.

3. ImmutableLawyer

Joseph has proven to be able to move things forward as demonstrated in his work on the ARDC and ADPC proposals. Furthermore, his legal background and operational experience can be a great asset to have on the council.

4. GMX

GMX brings a unique combination of financial experience and Arbitrum alignment which we believe is very valuable. We also believe that having been on the receiving end of the STIP, they can better understand the perspective of protocols applying to the LTIPP.

5. Wintermute

Wintermute has tremendous experience with market making in crypto which we believe will be valuable when assessing the various methods of capital allocation that will be present in the LTIPP proposals.

Disclaimer: We’re aware of and understand the concerns regarding GMX and Wintermute and potential conflicts of interest that might arise from their participation in the LTIPP council. We thought about whether or not these concerns are substantial enough to the point where we will not vote for them and we decided they aren’t for the following reasons:

• The council doesn’t have decision-making powers. They’re simply a filter for the applications which are ultimately voted on by delegates.
• Members of the council won’t be screening applications individually - they’ll do so collectively and based on a shared rubric. We rely on council members keeping each other accountable.
• We believe electing them to be on the council puts them in a spotlight. With other council members and delegates looking at them and their decisions, we expect more transparency and accountability, not less.

Application Advisors:

1. JoJo

Jojo has been acting as the ‘New Protocol Ideas’ domain allocator for Questbook’s grant program for the past few months. During his time, he has helped numerous projects with their applications and oftentimes he has worked alongside them to draft it. This experience makes him a great fit for an application advisor.

2. Serious People

Although relatively new to Arbitrum DAO, we think Serious People to be just that - serious. They were actively involved with the creation of the Application Advisor role for the LTIPP and we’d like to see them more actively involved both with the program, but also with the DAO in general.

3. Castle Capital

Castle Capital demonstrated their ability to provide applicants with constructive feedback during the STIP where they reviewed and provided feedback to numerous proposals in a very tight time frame.

[Pepperoni_Jo3]

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback.

LTIPP Council [snapshot] - Abstain

Unfortunately due to the voting structure for the LTIPP Council position we were unable to vote in this proposal. This is because the Snapshot vote listed a stipulation “Applicants may not vote for themselves” (including DAO-elected members of Treasure’s Arbitrum Council who were candidates for the LTIPP Council position). This significant restriction on voting was never publicly discussed or privately shared with Treasure as a significant delegate prior to the elections processes going live.

Upon further query the LTIPP program team confirmed that Treasure would be ineligible to use their delegated votes in support of any Treasure Community members participating in the election. This meant that Karel, Phil and Ali’s applications, as Treasure Community members, could not be voted for by Treasure as a delegate. We were instructed that, even if we did vote for these candidates on Snapshot, a manual reconciliation would take place after voting finished which would see the Treasure votes discounted if used to support any of these individuals.

We believe this framework represents a major failure in Arbitrum’s governance process.

We, as representatives of the Treasure Community, are trusted to actively engage in voting on their behalf. It is in the best interest of our community to support candidates who can effectively advocate for gaming-related matters in this position. However, the restriction on voting for specific Treasure-affiliated individuals hinders our ability to truly represent the community’s interests in the governance process, thereby disconnecting our delegate base from DAO governance.

This limitation also poses a strong disincentive for Treasure to participate in the voting process generally as utilising our significant voting power for other applicants would diminish the chances of success for any affiliated candidates in the nomination process. As a result this rule risks discouraging meaningful overall governance participation, both for us and for other delegates with affiliated candidates they hope to see successfully nominated.

We would recommend that the restriction “candidates may not vote for themselves” be removed. We feel this rule is subjective, arbitrary, logically flawed and actively undermines the rights of token holders who have delegated their votes to Treasure.

LTIPP Advisors [snapshot] - Voted

As no Treasure Community member was seeking selection for the Advisor position, and to our knowledge no significant delegate was representative in the possible candidates list, we felt comfortable progress with our vote as normal.

In our Council Advisor vote, we prioritised candidates who demonstrated suitable qualifications and experience with grants, incentive design and data analysis coupled with a proven track record of impact and effectiveness. The selected individuals include members of a group who have historically been active in Arbitrum and who we believe are capable of taking on more substantial responsibilities. We believe our overall selection reflects a commitment to bringing together serious, capable, and dedicated individuals to contribute meaningfully to Arbitrum DAOs success

Supported applications were as follows:

• Serious People
• Travis Skweres
• SEEDLatam Gov