I vote FOR this proposal in Tally, because as I said before, the value provided by the ARDC was huge.
Glad to see this proposal on on-chain vote! I shared my thoughts in the snapshot because I really believe ongoing ARDC programs are crucial for strengthening our governance, security, and research. I also believe this will help Arbitrum have a professional financial management system.
Voting in favor for the same reasons that I mentioned at the temperature check phase [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] - Arbitrum Research and Development Collective [Term 2] - #56 by 0x_ultra
For Tally: voted in favour (same reasons as temp-check)
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check and onchain stage. I think the first version of the ARDC was valuable in theory, but suffered from a lack of direction from the DAO. I am optimistic that this can be addressed in the next version by working more closely with the Foundation to map ARDC efforts to DAO initiatives.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally, especially based on how well ARDC v1 performed with the STIP analysis. The proposed budget is the lowest among the choices that were listed in Snapshot, but I’m sure the DAO could provide some additional funds (through a new proposal) if the need for that will arise.
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 FOR this proposal on Tally.
After reviewing the foundation established by ARDC in V1, we currently see no alternative that can fulfill its role as effectively. This continuation will undoubtedly strengthen ArbitrumDAO’s research and development efforts.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
voting Against the current on-chain proposal because I feel this committee is not really needed at this time. Also, it doesn’t make sense to approve this amount of spending without knowing who will be its beneficiaries since the elections will happen after the onchain vote.
Voted For: After being active in the DAO for almost a year, I have always seen work from ARDC as valuable. I also understand that this proposal, if approved, will secure another term with a great teams like L2Beat, Blockworks, and other to put efforts in to Arbitrum DAO. I have high expectations due to the size of the funds for this proposal (1.7M ARB). I expect a step up from V1 and to see even more effort put into it.
Question: Does the reallocation process avoid potential conflicts or unfairness if multiple high vote candidates prefer the same position? Are the rules clearly stated?
Suggestions:
1. Increase candidate transparency:
- In elections, add detailed planning notes from candidates for each role so that the community is more aware of their capabilities and specific goals.
Just voted FOR on Tally, for the same reasons I outlined during the temp-check: link to forum post.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our opinions made at the Snapshot phase and continue to support the new term of the ARDC. The funding amount was lower than the one we voted for, but with the recent price appreciation, it’s matched what we believe is the best.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
We voted in favor during the temp check, and we note that modifications have been made in the final proposal on Tally that incorporate feedback provided by the community (both ours and other delegates’), making this proposal more robust than when we voted on it in Snapshot.
- We appreciate that the possibility of extending the ARDC term by an additional six months has been included.
- The new compensation scheme better aligns with the ARDC’s dynamic—where, although part of the work will be pre-established, the remainder will be on-demand from the DAO, making it more suitable to pay per report rather than a fixed monthly payment.
- We regret the removal of the Hats implementation, and we understand the reasons provided by other delegates, but we saw it as a promising opportunity for experimentation. We hope this will be considered for future DAO initiatives (e.g., the OpCo, cc @entropy).
As part of my commitment to start voting as @web3citizenxyz contributor. This is our rational voting “FOR” on-chain.
We’re voting in favor of this proposal to fund ARDC V2.
This implementation closely aligns with what was previously approved at the Snapshot stage and maintains consistency in the DAO’s decision-making. ARDC has proven its value through V1, returning ARB to the DAO while delivering high-quality research deliverables.
ARDC’s research and analysis are crucial for Arbitrum’s governance and development, especially as the L2 landscape becomes more competitive. The funding level strikes the right balance between maintaining these capabilities and responsible treasury management.
I voted “FOR” on Tally, looking forward to seeing the next term in place.
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2448793548607195098)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
Voting has ended!
===============
[(V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2448793548607195098)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 134.84M of 120.74M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 117.18M (83.6%) |
| **Against** | | 5.29M (3.8%) |
| **Abstain** | | 17.66M (12.6%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
Gm, gm 
The results are in for the (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
The following 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 extensive discussion, both externally (with @ImmutableLawyer and other delegates) and internally, we decided to vote FOR the proposal.
During the temp check, we tentatively supported the proposal while offering some feedback on points of concern that were taken into account. This led to the proposal being slightly revised before the onchain vote.
Specifically, we suggested that the upfront fee to service providers be reduced to avoid potentially spending money for services that would not be utilized. The retainer was reduced from 1/3 to 1/5 which we find to be more reasonable.
We also suggested that ‘delegate approvals’ were introduced, which would basically mean that the ARDC would only pick up a workstream after receiving approval from a number of delegates with over X amount of voting power (”X” was to be defined). While that wasn’t introduced, we believe that with the proper utilization of the Supervisory Council, and specifically the people handling communications, we can have very strong alignment between the DAO and the ARDC.
We expect that the ARDC will be overly communicative both between them and delegates, but also between them and Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs. The communications people should split the workload in a way that enables them to be very thorough with their communication.
One thing we want to see addressed as soon as possible is the clarification of whose responsibility it is to keep track of the hours that service providers put in toward a deliverable requested from the Supervisory Council. Right now, and to our understanding, it’s implied that it will be the responsibility of the operations lead of the Supervisory Council. We would like for that to be clarified and for the ARDC to clearly communicate who is responsible.
Lastly, we want to highlight that if the OpCo is set up during the ARDC’s tenure, we expect it to take ownership of the initiative and be responsible for its oversight. We think that in the event that happens, the Supervisory Council should work with the OpCo to figure out how to transition properly into the new structure.
1 Like