I think we need for our DAO this collective. We spin up ton of initiatives, and some goes in parallel, are highly technical and/or require smart contract implementation. We need to be able to asses the risk and we can’t make the responsability fall back on OCL.
At the same time we need a data science unit; we need to crunch data and understand what is happening both in our world and in the rest of the crypto world.
I don’t have a very strong opinion on the budget. @Immutablelawyer I know it would be quite difficult, but maybe in future could be interesting to try and highlight the difference of amount of deliverable (or whatever kpi you deem fit) between budget A, B and C. I am pretty sure that 90% of users here who didn’t work in an audit or research firm don’t know the cost of bread. Because of this, I am going with the middle choice of 2.09M.
As a final thought, I hope that when we are going to have to renew this initiative in 6 months, we will have opco capable of internalize this whole structure. I really think we will need risk and data analyst, constantly, moving forward.
On a more general note, I support the council added on top, I really think analyzing the work can be a very complex task not suited just for a single advocate; the payroll structure (1/3 upfront, and the rest split 50/50 before/after deliverable) is for sure better in term of alignment. I also think it’s more of a theoretical solution than anything, “hours” in crypto are what they are, they are easy to game (not saying anyone would do that) and are a not so meaningful measure compared to IRL jobs in which you just use a badge. But I understand the need to address some concern, and the need to at least try to find solutions.
Voted for the middle option based on @Immutablelawyer suggestion.
In the future I hope proposal authors negotiate the amounts and propose to the DAO, rather than having us vote. It’s hard to dig into the budgetary implications of each choice and we would rather a paid person do the research on the numbers than each delegate voting
Im struggling to see the benefit of all the initiatives we are seeing right now growing in the DAO.
Do we even have an overview anymore and know who is doing what and what is overlapping?
We have Entropy, now the second round of ARDC, im not even sure what else there is, but i am sure there is something. Voting abstain, as im not fully against but think the DAO is really struggling to keep up with everything. Sometimes less is more.
Just submitted my vote on Snapshot and went 100% with the $1.73M funding + Council. I felt the same way @EzR3aL did during this vote: with so many initiatives, it’s hard to follow who’s doing what and whether there’s any overlap. It’d be nice if someone could create a graphic summarizing everything we have going on. Anyway, I decided to support this proposal because of ARDC V1’s proven track record and because this lower budget encourages more efficient capital allocation.
DeFiSafety would like to express interest in the Risk analysis aspect of this initiative. We have been doing analysis of DeFi protocols and chains for over four years. Our focus has been on quality, process and transparency. This is more important than ever today. If you look at the security incidents from the recent past many (close to half) are due to weak processes, known bugs or weak OpSec. DeFiSafety may be able to contribute to this aspect and other analysis of DeFi protocols.
To be clear: We are applying for the Risk Seat, which best uses our experience.
I will be voting to continue funding the ARDC. It has shown to provide value operationally, and the willingness to return funds to the DAO is appreciated.
I voted for Option B, as based on the funding explanation it is enough to fund the project based on the prior period. Voting for A I feel will limit the quality of applicants, but voting for C just feels like giving already established applicants a reason to increase price for no reason other then it being available.
Edit to save space: For Tally, I will maintain my “Yes” vote for the reasons noted above. I trust the ARDC will continue to provide value for the DAO and look forward to what they come up with in the future!
We recognize and appreciate the value of ARDC provided for the Arbitrum ecosystem. The only thing is that we are not clear on the difference of the 3 budget options and what deliverables might change for them. Would be great that those details could be provided if possible.
We appreciate the work that ARDC accomplished during phase 1, making valuable contributions to research, security, and risk for ArbitrumDAO. Based on their overall performance, we’re in favor of renewing the ARDC for another 6 months with the option A through the ARDC V2 Proposal, as we believe it is necessary for ArbitrumDAO to effectively manage its growing number of technical initiatives, especially those requiring smart contract implementation and risk assessment. The ARDC’s contributions to research and data analysis are crucial for the DAO to stay ahead and make informed decisions.
Voted for Funded with 2.09M (middle): I see no reason not to support this proposal. I think the work of ARDC has been valuable for the DAO and would like us to continue to support it. I also like the people involved in ARDC and would like to keep them working on the DAO. I picked the middle option because I believe that changes to some upfront payment is a big enough change. We will see how the term goes and then decide if we want to allocate even more funds upfront.
I voted for the middle option, 2.09M USDC. I believe we need ongoing these ARDC programs to keep governance, security, and research stronger. I think this option will give us enough resources to make good progress without too overspending. Btw, I understand the basic differences between the three options, but if the author could share more details about each initiative and what results we can expect from them, it will easier to evaluate.
I voted for 100% of Funded with 1.73M USDC + Council.
It is important to say that the work done by all team on Term1 was amazing. Term2 tries to build upon the learnings and I hope that the effectiveness (assessment of pain issues within the DAO with their deliverables) increases with the changes proposed.
I will vote in favor of this proposal in the tempcheck and choose the higher budget option (2.60M).
I’m pleased with the immense value the ARDC delivered and with the service providers who remained engaged with the DAO.
I’m not entirely convinced about replacing the DAO Advocate with the Supervisory Council, but I echo L2BEAT reflections, so I’m also not opposed to a 6-month experiment to see how it works
I believe the key lies in this reflection, and it should be the primary focus of this new Council:
Lastly, thank you Joseph @Immutablelawyer , for the work on the proposal.
voting Do not fund the ARDC on the current offchain proposal because I feel there is not enough pull from the DAO to justify this committee and the consequent high investment, especially given the history of the previous committee in the past 6 months.
Happy to be proven wrong with the value the ARDC has provided.
I was (and still am a little) very skeptical of giving such a wide spectrum of influence to the ARDC, but their research has been extremely helpful to validate proposals and I haven’t seen any issues to be concerned about. I really also appreciate how streamlined this proposal became.
Because we are trying to detox, I will vote 100% for the 1.73M, but I really appreciate the work that has been put into the ARDC to date.
I think that ARDC did a great job during phase 1, providing high-quality performances and making meaningful contributions to the DAO. This is why I’m in favor of supporting its renewal for phase 2. Concerning the options, it was difficult to see what actually changed in terms of deliverables for each of the three. But I eventually decided to vote for option A.
I just cast my vote:
Voted 100% in favor of the 1.73M USDC + Council option… the least financial risk among the suggested alternatives, enabling the DAO to evaluate the effectiveness of ARDC V2 before committing to larger budgets.
Firstly, we’d like to thank everyone for their comments and feedback - it has been very useful for our team in creating an optimised Arbitrum Research & Development Collective for the ArbitrumDAO!
Additionally, we are pleased to announce that the Arbitrum Foundation will be undertaking an ‘Observer’ role in relation to the Supervisory Council to aid in streamlining ARDC efforts, communication and overall efficacy!
We’re voting in support of the Funded with 1.73M USDC option for ARDC v2.
ARDC’s research and analysis are crucial for Arbitrum’s governance and development, especially as the L2 landscape becomes more competitive. The 1.73M USDC level strikes the right balance between maintaining these capabilities and responsible treasury management.
After re-considering the updated proposal we have decided to vote FOR (Fund with 1.73M USDC + Council).
We believe that the ARDC v1 has done ample work to support delegates in their research and decision making and appreciate the improvements made in v2.
It is difficult for us to have a complete view of and opinion on the budget as it has note been linked to potential deliverables.
We do still believe that there should be multiple Research members in order to provide a more rounded and holistic view of things that can sometimes be viewed through a number of lens (unlike security and risk).