[Non-Constitutional]: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0

This proposal was very complex to asses. Way more than others.

  • it lacks some context and explanations (why this high concentration of asian users on this proposal? They told me: initial a lot of communication happened in asian communities and channels)
  • it lacks some proper metrics (discord screenshots are, well, not the standard way to provide info. But how do you prove your community activity?)
  • it lacks some proper fact checking (is basically impossible to verify all the assertions and to verify that effectively all the users “deserving” a reward are in this list).

That said, community, especially in the beginning, are born on the sweat, blood and tier of (also) their most active users and their mods. These users, in the telegram and discord chat, keep the vibe alive, keep the spirit alive, address the fud, help with the engagements. They do provide value.

Assuming, effectively, a calculation of 2.5 years, that puts these users at 550/month. Even if we just consider 1000/m, in my opinion, it would be an ok number.

Why? Because being in such big community is really really really a lift. You have thousands of messages of people asking wen token, thousands of people asking how to claim, thousands of people saying they got scammed and so on. Is not easy to be constantly there.

That’s why I am voting for, with a caveat that @krst was able to properly express: this is a one time thing.
Doesn’t mean we can’t have retrogrants in Arbitrum, no. We should at some point be able to have retrogrants. But imho proposals can’t be presented to the community in this way, in this modality, and also with such premises.

1 Like

Following further reflection and consideration of insights from @Mysterymen and other delegates, we have decided to change our vote to support this proposal. Our decision is influenced by the recognition that the amount requested by Mysterymen is reasonable and modest compared to the initial proposal. We acknowledge the challenges associated with managing discord scams and the difficulty of engaging with people in discord. The contributions made have been impressive in terms of organization, and the evaluation of such intangible efforts is very challenging. Although we believe that individuals who contribute more significantly should receive greater rewards, since the arbiters are in favor of equal reward distribution, we will support this approach.


The Savvy DeFi DAO’s Arbitrum Council has decisively voted FOR this proposal.

We acknowledge the evolution of this proposal over the past few months. The new approach and focus will be retroactively incentivized to the community. Of course, we also take into consideration the complexity involved in executing this project.

We decided to vote this time for this proposal and we’ll be following updates and insights here.


Will be voting FOR this proposal but very much as a one off proposal from the formation of the DAO and a reflection of the contributions that were made in the those early days and not precedent setting.


I will be voting “For” this proposal.

I appreciate Mystermen and their team for taking the criticisms from the initial proposal and re-working it for this second one. The reduction in requested amount is appreciated, and this ARB payout + the USD portion received seems to be fair compensation for the work provided. The detail provided paints a good picture of what was done, and while we value is subjective… a lot of work seems to have been done that warrants some form of compensation as stated.

Broadly speaking, I am for retroactive grants where they make sense. Based on the information provided / discussion that has came from this I think this is a case does so. I’ll echo other’s that I don’t want us to set a precedent that causes a flood of proposals, but I will also say that I don’t think these types of discussions need to be shyd away from when a fair case comes up. Early community work is often an altruistic and thankless job for a project that you may not even know will succeed. So I lean towards rewarding those who took on these types of roles were possible.


The Princeton Blockchain Club will be voting in favor of The Community Arbiter Proposal V2 at the Snapshot stage. As others noted, properly evaluating this proposal has posed a unique challenge. We appreciate the work that @Mysterymen and co have put into improving V1.

We’re in favor of supporting valuable work for the community and encouraging others to contribute. As most of us are aware, moderating crypto-related Discords takes a lot of effort to do right!

We’ll be reviewing this further in the Tally stage, but we’ll vote For at this time.


Thank you to all the delegates for your suggestions and help. arbiter has made some content updates in the 2.0 proposal based on the suggestions of delegates.

At the snapshot, 2.0 Proposal was voted in favor of an overwhelming majority of delegates.

In the next few days, arbiter will publish the 2.0 proposal on tally and start on-chain voting.