After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We would like to begin by expressing our appreciation for the Foundation’s work on the grants program. However, upon reviewing this proposal, there are a few aspects that raise concerns for the future:
- Lack of a clearer roadmap/timeline: While the general verticals for investment have been outlined, there is a lack of clarity on how the funds will be allocated, the expected duration of the grants, or the criteria for distribution. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding the long-term plan: once these funds are depleted, will the Foundation return to the DAO for additional funding?
- Shift from growth to sustainability: The DAO appears to be transitioning from a full-growth strategy to a more sustainable approach to fund management. This raises questions about the Foundation’s alignment with this new reality, particularly given that 250M ARB represents a significant portion of the treasury. We believe the DAO and the Arbitrum Foundation must work collaboratively, but from our perspective, this has not been happening sufficiently so far.
- In light of these concerns, we suggest that ARB disbursements be spread over time and aligned with a detailed roadmap from the Foundation. The MSS could collaborate with the Foundation to implement monthly or quarterly installments, rather than a vesting schedule, ensuring sufficient liquidity for larger deals while minimizing market disruptions from excessive disbursements.
- Need for oversight: To ensure that the Foundation’s actions are aligned with the DAO and to avoid redundancy with other DAO-funded programs, we support the creation of an oversight committee, as proposed by other delegates. This committee should have full access to relevant information, including sensitive data that the Foundation has indicated it cannot disclose publicly.
We hope to see some of this feedback reflected in the final proposal on Tally, in which case we will consider voting in favor. We regret that this feedback has come at a later stage, but we believe the pre-snapshot discussion period has been quite short (just one week for a proposal requesting approximately 8% of the treasury). As such, we recommend extending the discussion to allow for more thorough deliberation.