The below response 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 we first reviewed the original proposal, we voted in its favor during the temp-check and then provided our feedback with points we wanted to see addressed before the on-chain vote. Our feedback wasn’t addressed and we ultimately had to vote against the proposal. In their revised proposal, the ask amount has been significantly reduced, and there has been a good-faith effort to list the contributions made both on a collective and on an individual basis.
We understand the position Arbiters find themselves in when trying to justify the requested amount for contributions that are hard to track and measure or assess their impact. And it became very apparent when we tried to think of an amount ourselves - which was impossible to do without relying on arbitrary decision-making.
Having said that, and given the concerns we raised in the original proposal have been addressed in the revised one, we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal during temp-check, and during the following on-chain vote if the temp check is successful.
However, we want to take the opportunity and state that we do not see this proposal as something setting a precedent, and we suggest that the DAO shouldn’t entertain such votes in the future unless there’s a very strong reason to do so.