Entropy is supportive of renewing the ARDC for a 2nd term and will be posting a more thorough rationale on our delegate communication thread. However, before voting, our team would like to disclose a COI, as it is our intention to apply for the Supervisory Council. If elected, our team would waive payment.
LlamaRisk would like to apply for the Risk Member seat of the Arbitrum Research and Development Collective. We are a nonprofit DeFi risk firm with extensive experience as risk providers to high profile DAOs such as Curve and Aave.
Our area of expertise is well suited to the Risk Member position, with services ranging from:
- Qualitative risk evaluation,
- Simulations tooling,
- Risk monitoring dashboards,
- DeFi integrations and risk curation,
- Legal risk analysis, and
- Consultation in DAO governance processes.
We approach our work with a spirit of collaboration, which we will bring to our engagement with DAO delegates and the wider community, our fellow ARDC members, and the protocols that make up the Arbitrum ecosystem. After some discussion with DAO stakeholders, we believe we can offer timely, comprehensive risk analysis at a competitive price that meets the requirements of the ARDC.
Weâd like to thank @ImmutableLawyer for putting the Collective together in the first place and for spearheading its second phase. We are excited to review the supplementary documents and submit a formal application for this Risk Member position in the near future.
1 Like
The LevelK Delegation is voting 100% to Abstain.
We are abstaining because we need to do further research to understand the function of the ARDC. Here are some of the outstanding questions we are researching:
-How does the ARDCâs function differ from other entities within and outside the DAO? (ex. Entropy, AF, OCL)
-As @DisruptionJoe brought up, is there a long term program that could be started that identifies and funds research?
We will continue to do diligence on this issue and look forward to engaging the community regarding our questions.
1 Like
We vote 100% for Option B: âFunded with 2.09M + Councilâ.
While there were some challenges reported by L2BEAT in this report, we believe that the ARDC members have provided valuable deliverables for the DAO. We acknowledge that itâs difficult to quantify the value provided by them and hope it would be something the new program can address. Having an oversight council makes sense as well, and weâre looking for Entropy to take its role as it feels one of their responsibilities.
For the budget, considering the quotes provided by the actual members that have done the works, and according to the authorâs recommendation, we believe the Option B is the most balanced one to experiment with.
1 Like
DAOplomats are voting FOR 1.73M USDC + Council.
The deliverables from the ARDC have come in handy several times, most recently, the TimeBoost research by Blockworks is helping the staking working group with its research. Thus, we would love to see the team delivering for another 12 months.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting 100% for funding with 1.73M USDC + Council.
The ARDC addresses key areas of risk, security, and research for the DAO, which are crucial for its continued success. Weâve closely followed the research and security reports, and they have guided many of our decisions and votes.
At this time, we donât see any other alternative that can fulfill the role of the ARDC as effectively. We hope to see more long-term reports focused on the growth and direction of the DAO.
Additionally, more clarity on who can request work, how requests are made, and the rationale behind approvals would be beneficial for the community.
1 Like
Blockworks Research will be ABSTAINING from this proposal.
While we donât believe a vote from us could have been a violation of COI, we are erring on the side of caution and excited to possibly participate in ARDC V2. The V1 of the ARDC was clearly needed and overall provided a beneficial service to Arbitrum, which has allowed us to gauge the DAOs necessities and give the delegate base an idea of what is needed in terms of incentives, and other forms of management.
1 Like
Voting 1.73M USDC + Council .
1 Like
The following reflects the views of L2BEATâs governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and itâs based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
After extensive consideration and internal deliberation, weâre voting FOR the proposal during temp-check and opting to vote for the 1,73M USDC budget. We want to note that our vote during temp-check doesnât automatically translate to support during the onchain vote, which is contingent on some points being addressed (see below).
Upon reviewing the âperformanceâ of ARDCâs first term, we reflected on some things that could have been better, or that could be improved in the next iteration of the ARDC, such as the ARDC v2 proposal. See the final ARDC report here, and our view as Delegates -and not the DAO Advocate- here.
The main reason weâre against the concept ARDC at this time is that we believe the DAO isnât in a position to leverage its potential to the fullest, as shown by the lack of engagement between delegates and the ARDC during the latterâs first term. Although the v2 proposal hopes to address that by introducing 2 members focused on communication in the Supervisory Council, we are skeptical of the effect such a solution will have, if any.
As things are in the DAO right now, we simply do not see a need for the ARDC or a demand for its services. With that in mind, we donât see a reason to be spending over $1,000,000 on it. On the other hand, however, if and when the need does arise, it will be difficult to get something done without first having to go through the governance process to set up something like the ARDC. To us, the current proposal is more of a proactive step to respond to needs if and when they arise rather than a reactive solution to existing needs.
In an attempt to find a middle ground, we believe that the best solution is to earmark the funds for the ARDC to use, establish service providers and the Supervisory Council, and then only use them when a need arises.
Some things that weâd like to suggest and hopefully implement before an onchain vote are:
- The upfront fee paid to service providers as a retainer will be reduced. While we understand the need to pay a retainer fee to ensure that service providers are available for the DAO to use when we need them, we find 1/3 of the total fee to be on the high end.
- The introduction of delegate approvals for ARDC workstreams to begin. Requiring, say 5, approvals from the top delegates (maybe from the delegates receiving incentives) before the Supervisory Council can assign a workstream to the ARDC could help mitigate against frivolous spending, and also get delegates more involved.
We hope to discuss and address some other minor details further, but the above 2 points are the most important to us right now.
5 Likes
The results are in for the (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote âFund with 1.73M USDC + Councilâ on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We support the continuation of the ARDC as expressed in our previous comment. We are pleased that the feedback we provided has been considered.
Also we opted for the most economical alternative because we believe that if the required work exceeds the approved compensation in any way, an additional budget can be allocated.
Building on what @krst mentioned, it might be beneficial to allocate payments for the two months of scheduled work by the applicants, with a residual budget set aside for âon-demandâ content requested by the DAO which will be used to pay the SPs for their work as they deliver it. Given that the scope and depth of required research can vary, this approach would make it easier for the DAO to quantify exactly how much it is paying for each report in specific instead of just calculating an average.
2 Likes
Are you satisfied with the current ARDC risk member? If so or if not, what could be improved? There are some entities that plan to apply for the ARDC risk role. What is the preferred medium for them to contact yourself or others with nuanced views on the ARDC?
2 Likes
I wonât comment on the previous risk member since weâre managing elections and we donât want to instill bias (wonât comment in favour or against). My reflections are overall very well-aligned w/those posed in Sinkasâ report!
Interested parties may reach out to us on our dedicated telegram group here: Telegram: Join Group Chat
1 Like
Voting has started for this proposal!
Vote on Tally: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our team voted for the $1.73M funding option + council. We are appreciative of the work that the ARDC conducted during v1 and are therefore willing to continue allocating resources to their efforts. Ascertaining the amount of budget to allocate for the program is not the simplest task without delving deeper into details, so we chose the least expensive option. This was also in part motivated by the new retainer model. Ideally, a retainer leads to more prudent capital allocation, which could justify minimizing the overall required budget.
Voted FOR: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
- Funded with 2.09M USDC + Council
Vote: FOR
Type: Snapshot
Proposal link: Arbitrum Research & Development Collective (V2)
Voting Rationale Link: Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #34 by AlexLumley
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
This proposal to continue the Arbitrum Research & Development Collective (ARDC) with a 2.09M USDC budget and the establishment of a Supervisory Council aims to build on the foundation set by ARDC V1. Given the critical areas the ARDC addressesârisk, security, and researchâits work provides essential support for the long-term health and growth of Arbitrum DAO. The previous version demonstrated the ARDCâs capacity to deliver high-impact deliverables, and the councilâs introduction promises to create a more structured approach, improving oversight and communication.
Feedback has highlighted the importance of structured approvals and clear KPI monitoring to maximize value. By adopting a retainer model, this proposal ensures that capital is deployed efficiently, with a clear mechanism for oversight through the delegate approvals. Additionally, including two members in the Supervisory Council to focus on communication is a positive step towards bridging any engagement gaps with the broader DAO community.
For Snapshot: supportive of the proposal and voted for 1.73MUSDC. ARDC has provided value in previous phaze. Voted in favour.
I vote FOR this proposal. I understand the concerns of some delegates about increasing or maintaining bureaucracy, however I think it is crucial for the DAO to have SP ready to perform quality security reports when the needs arise.
The ARDC enables the Arbitrum DAO to continue benefiting from expert guidance and it helps in improving operational efficiency, having aligned incentives, and ensuring that resources are used effectively. This initiative supports the DAOâs mission to foster a secure, innovative, and sustainable ecosystem for its community.
Sadly, I could not vote for this proposal but I would have voted FOR, as I believe having a dedicated research team is necessary for every organization. My rationale is that having this collective active will help in decision-making, strategic planning and resource optimization. I also believe it is necessary to have one in order to foster adaptability to change.
2 Likes
Thanks @Immutablelawyer for the proposal.
I think the ARDC V2 is very clever and better than V1.
Voting for the ARDC V2 proposal is a strategic move to strengthen ArbitrumDAOâs research and development efforts while optimizing costs and enhancing governance. First, ARDC V2 builds on the success of V1, which returned over 1 million ARB to the DAO Treasury, demonstrating measurable value and efficiency. The introduction of a Supervisory Council adds structure, with dedicated roles in communication and operations that streamline day-to-day management and align activities with the DAOâs strategic goals.
The new funding model is more cost-effective and aligns incentives by linking most payments to actual project needs, avoiding underutilization and ensuring that resources are used where they are most impactful. The Retainer Model also encourages competitive hourly rates and ensures payments are directly tied to deliverables, promoting accountability and cost-effectiveness.