The link to join tomorrow’s governance call to discuss the proposal pipeline and notable discussions is on the governance calendar.
Date: May 6, 2025
Time: 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
Video call link: Huddle01 Meet
Approach:
The agenda below will be fluid.
For authors and/or key contributors of these proposals, it would be helpful if you could include a tl;dr / update of your proposal / discussion in the comments so delegates can review them and prepare their questions for the call.
We prioritize all proposals and notable discussions that have more engagement.
The logic of the two weeks is that given the proposal lifecycle (one week on the forum, one week on Snapshot and then two weeks on Tally). This means that even if a proposal goes through that shortest possible route, it will be covered at least at the proposal and the Tally stage or the Snapshot and the Tally stage.
For anything that needs a recap, they could be parked after these discussions
I created a transcript from the Huddle01 recording and then created a summary to help anyone with a more concise overview of the meeting discussion. I hope that the community finds this useful. Tk u!
Open Discussion Proposal Call - May 6, 2025 - Transcript Summary
1. The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
Platform Chosen: GlobaLeaks
Free, open-source, privacy-first
AF will host a dedicated instance
Expected launch: End of May (if vote passes), social media to help promote
Modeled after Gitcoin’s fraud bounty system
Committee Composition Changes
New members: Entropy, AF, SEEDGov
ARDC removed from committee
COI clause included - reviewers must recuse themselves when needed
Bounty Payout Model
Payouts now up to 5% of recovered funds (not stacked on top)
Flexibility for lower-tier rewards (e.g. Tier 3 ~$2K) maintained
KYC & Confidentiality
Whistleblower identity not required at submission
KYC only needed for payout processing with AF
Not all cases made public - redactions allowed for safety or legal reasons
Oversight + COI Questions Raised
AF receiving first notification (even in self-reviews) may cause trust issues
Committee recusal process defined, but some see potential for conflicts in edge cases
Suggested Improvements
Public disclosures of COI recusals
External reviewers added ad hoc
Eventually moving toward a neutral, third-party handler
Takeaways / Next Steps
Final grantee list expected May 9. Community feedback will help shape future rounds
A follow-up space with reviewers may be scheduled
Tally vote will start on May 8th
2. Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations
40 applications received after review process
Currently up for vote on SnapShot, voting ends May 8th
3. Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
Top up of Hackathon Continuation Program (HCP), explained as a short-term fix
Due to delays in converting ARB to stablecoins, the program lost purchasing power during the price dip and now lacks enough funds to support Phase 2.
Why there’s a funding gap
There were delays in swapping ARB due to unclear fund management processes and changing conditions in December
This caused the converted funds to fall short of covering all planned expenses
The proposed solution
Use leftover funds from the Domain Allocator Season 1 program, which are already sitting in small assets like bridged USDC
If the proposal passes, these funds will be
Used to top up the HCP, and
Transferred to the Treasury Management Committee (TMC), which will manage and convert the assets
Additional comments
This approach avoids the need for a lengthy on-chain proposal, fills the funding gap quickly, and gives the TMC more flexibility to manage stablecoin reserves for future needs
If approved, the old bridged USDC will be swapped by the TMC and included in the DAO’s stablecoin strategy
Proposal is a one-off and won’t be repeated - future proposals should rely on more formalized fund management (hitting multiple strategies at same time - diversification into stables, a top-up for HCP, and funds for future service providers)
Proposal does not require constitutional quorum
4. AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
Context on % thresholds: The 5% quorum currently required is based on typical governance norms (e.g., simple majority, supermajority). However, these are rule-of-thumb numbers and not fixed standards.
Proposal Suggestion: A better long-term approach would be to base quorum on delegated ARB, not the total circulating supply.
Concerns Raised:
Lowering quorum (e.g., from 5% to 4.5%) might trigger a slippery slope - what prevents it from being lowered to 4%, then 3.5%, etc.?
What if this proposal fails due to not reaching quorum? Should it be reintroduced or revised?
Responses
The DAO is free to propose future changes, but continuously reducing quorum is not healthy
This is viewed as a short-term fix while the DAO works on more permanent governance improvements
If the proposal doesn’t reach quorum, the strategy would be to refine it to gain more support
On-chain Vote Timing
Earliest possible vote: May 29
This vote would be under the highest-ever constitutional quorum level to date
5. SimScore: A Plug-In to convert Discourse Forum Discussions into Clear Proposal Revisions with Community-Sourced Justifications
Goal: Use AI and a custom API to edit governance proposals based on community feedback
How it works
Collects forum comments
Uses SimScore API to:
Rank suggestions by similarity to the “consensus point.”
Analyze relationships between ideas (pairwise comparison)
AI then revises the proposal accordingly
Final output shows
Revised proposal with changes marked
Justification for edits based on top-ranked feedback
Two-phase feedback process
Open discussion (no token weighting)
Snapshot phase, where comment weighting adjusts based on delegate voting power (incentive-aligned)
Concerns Raised
System could be gamed (e.g., sockpuppet accounts flooding the forum)
DAO often prioritizes feedback from high-voting-power delegates, not just volume of comments
How to ensure quality over quantity in comment impact?