Michigan Blockchain Delegate Communication Thread
Wallet Address: 0x13BDaE8c5F0fC40231F0E6A4ad70196F59138548
ENS: michiganblockchain.eth
Forum Username: @Michigan_Blockchain
Twitter: @UMichBlockchain,
Email: Blockchain@umich.edu
Links to voting updates
September 2024 Voting Updates
Snapshot:
[Constitutional] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock
- We support this proposal. The extended delay on the L2TimeLock would not impose any performance bottlenecks upon smart contract development, but in fact the effect would be the opposite, as there will be more time allocated to repair and upgrade previous smart contracts. In addition, the added time will be crucial for the security council to act upon any malicious attacks if they occur, and the user themselves gain more time to withdraw their funds to protect themselves from a potential attack for instance.
STIP-Bridge Operational Budget
- We vote for this proposal. Since the Operations budget has already passed, this proposal just approves the distribution of the funds to the respective parties. The percentage and cost breakdown for each portion of the operational budget is logical and below industry average.
[Replace Oversight Committee with MSS] Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
- We vote for this proposal. We believe the idea of delegating 7M ARB to a community voting pool will bring in more small-wallet ARB token holders to participate within the Arbitrum DAO and governance community. In addition, this proposal leaves room for flexibility to un-delegate these 7M ARB tokens from the community pool at any time under discretion from the MSS Committee. Lots of benefits in terms of increasing governance participation.
[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program
- Overall, like the direction this is going in compared to v1 introducing more quantitative criteria. However, we think that some of the thresholds for voting are still too low (thinking about this program in comparison to Uniswap’s DIP). Lots of comments in the RFC stating similar points we agree with about quantifying participation, comments, and call attendance.
August Voting Updates
Snapshot:
ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance
- We vote for this proposal, especially after some of the promises made in the July 22 update by Frisson. Voting for how the future fund rewards will be distributed and deciding how the staking percentages will be set at a later date allows for the flexibility to alter the rates that delegates get, which can be important in ensuring that centralization by a few key players is avoided. The idea of staking seems like it would benefit the DAO and Arbitrum as a whole, as more people being involved thanks to the monetary benefit that comes from staking means governance decisions will involve more people than before.
Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains
- We vote against this proposal, as there are some concerns with the value of this service. The first point is that while confirmed by Blockworks that this sums up to below market value, the total cost coming out to 210k is still a big ask. The ROI and value proposition of this proposal is not apparent to us, and until that proposition is visible, this proposal does not seem like a good use of money. If another vote were to take place with more explanation/vision of how Orbit chains and their analytics can be useful in specific cases, we could get behind that.
ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard
- Voting against this proposal because of crossover with Karma services. Think that there are specific use cases for a project like this such as to avoid gov attacks or inspect governance tangential areas like grant usage, rather than the current generalist scope of the project. Some of the individual delegate metrics may be redundant or not particularly useful to many unless they can be integrated into the delegate incentive program rewards calculations, instead of just complementary dashboards as an audit.
Proposal to Temporary Extend Delegate Incentive System.
- Vote for this proposal. Not having any incentive system until 1.1 is implemented seems problematic, therefore maintaining the current system until the upgrades are there is the sound thing to do.
- Voted for since not even a full fledged proposal yet, just interest check. Too many details are missing so making a fair conclusion is not possible. Update the temp check with more relevant details and a supposed cost estimate.
An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO
- Against b/c procedural issues. Hugely in favor of this especially for delegates like us who function as an organization and have turnover. Makes onboarding process a lot easier and generally looking for information about the dao without having to go digging for information. Will vote in favor next time it’s created on snapshot. Just move to the proposals category to keep everything in one place.
Should the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies?
- Voted for “strict self voting policy”. Don’t believe delegates should be able to vote for themselves in a beneficial way especially when a nominee for an election is a large delegate. The other two policies still allow said nominee to give themselves a large number of votes. When this passes the temp check and comes down to a vote to adopt a final policy, we would also support “responsible voting policy”
October 2024 Voting Updates
Snapshots:
AIP: Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
- We vote in favor of whitelisting Infura. They have been an integral part of keeping the Arbitrum Nova network stable, and the fact that Infura is not already whitelisted seems to be an oversight.
Research on context and retention
- We vote in support of this proposal. Because the standard precautions on user safety are taken, and no costs are incurred, we see little downside. In addition, USCB is a trusted research partner and we have confidence in their practices and methodologies. Definitely could see a lot of upside in onboarding new members to governance and getting them caught up quickly.
An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO
- We vote in favor of this proposal and to use ENS text records. This proposal will be big for any new users entering the Arbitrum ecosystem as there is one platform for the DAO to report on its statistics which can be used for governance and non-governance purposes. No cost is a huge plus.
LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections
- Voting abstain for a few reasons, one being that there is little evidence or direct proof on how much contributions each of the community members have put in during the pilot program making it hard to directly judge the appropriate amounts of funding each member gets. In addition, this vote does not seem appropriate for the community to make, but rather something that the LTIPP council should take the responsibility of deciding. Another approach could be having a third party writing an objective report detailing all the contributions so there is a more quantifiable measurement, but as it stands, a community vote does not seem like proper protocol.*
Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
- We vote for this proposal, obvious benefits of expanding Arbitrum’s outreach at major web3 conferences. The mechanism to return unused funds to the treasury makes sense, and the 1.5M USD estimate seems on par for an outreach budget.