We have put together and shared a best practice guide with the folks on the MSS. I think the problem statement you are alluding too is really:
If a new multisig is setup, how can I verify that each signer is part of a larger group of signers who I know are trustworthy?
i.e., If the largest group is Alice, Bob, Caroline, Dave, then can I be convinced that only this group of people are in the multisig? i.e., 2-3 multisig, without revealing who exactly that is.
There is cryptography to do stuff like this, such as group signatures / ring signatures / zk protocols. I don’t think anyone has really built the functionality yet to work with something like gnosis safe. I think it’d be pretty cool overall though. I think the trickiest technical feature is to make sure if each signer produces a membership proof, then there isn’t a collision between the proofs. i.e., Alice can’t create three proofs and pretend to be Alice/Bob/Caroline.
If there is no way to verify the authenticity of a multisig, then why not send money to a trusted multisig, and then they can send it to another one (which they can verify without disclosing the information to everyone), but at least there will be someone to ask.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
We feel as though the foundation has been sufficiently transparent with the DAO for partnerships an grants. Any further lack of transparency is purely for competitive edge, which is required for the network to compete with others.
I voted yes. Its crucial for the Arbitrum ecosystem to grow. Competitors are growing strong and I simply do believe there is some BD work that needs to be done by the AF.
I understand that some people think the transparency is lacking in terms of wallet address and how the funds will be used. I would suggest that the AF will be doing a monthly report on how the funds have been used, how much has been used and whats next happening to keep transparency as high as possible.
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.
We’re voting FOR the proposal, just as we did during the temp-check vote.
The Foundation is one of the DAO’s biggest assets and even though we would like to see them constantly improve on transparency of the use of funds, we’re in favor of supporting them with additional funds. We believe not funding them would be a greater opportunity cost than what we’d ‘save’ by not funding them and we’d miss out on a lot of things that the DAO is not yet at a position to undertake (e.g. strategic partnerships).
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
While 250m ARB increase from the 750m total allocated to AF is quite large, we believe the potential partnerships that AF can bring to the chain and ecosystem have a high chance of being very high impact. While the DAO does not have oversight or input on how these funds will be used in partnerships, we can likely trust the AF will use it responsibly. We expect transparency reports when available, and like other delegates mentioned, would like it if there was a delegate that was chosen as a liaison/oversight member under NDA.
gTrade is in support of this proposal to allocate additional funds in order to expand AF’s strategic partnerships, especially for the Orbit expansion. Compared to competitors, AF’s budget is significantly smaller and constrained by the vesting contract, limiting its ability to make competitive offers to potential partners. With Sony and Uniswap both opting for the OP stack, it’s more crucial than ever that the Foundation is provided with sufficient budget to remain competitive.
Just cast my ‘FOR’ vote on Tally. As I highlighted during the temp-check, expanding strategic partnerships is crucial for Arbitrum’s growth. But I want to stress again the importance of transparency; especially when we’re dealing with 250M ARB, which is no small figure.
Voted For: Same as my comment for the Snapshot vote. I still lack transparency regarding how these funds are used. Who gets, how much? I understand some of these deals should be private. But it is hard for us to asses if this kind of fund justifies the outcome if we don’t know how the funds are used. On the other side, I trust Arbitrum Foundation that in this time of highly competitive conditions we will use the funds positively that will benefit Arbitrum and Ethereum ecosystem.
I’m voting in favor, as I did in the temperature check phase. Even if my concerns about transparency are still present, I also see the importance of allocating this fund for strategic reasons. Nonetheless, I’d be happy to see regular and in-depth reports as the amount is pretty big.
I trust the Foundation to be the best gateway of the DAO, and I believe we need to synergetically support each other to guarantuee that we can move fast and effectively.
The Foundation is the best operational arm we have and we have aligned interests.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
SEEDGov understands the rationale behind this proposal. It’s true that the allocation received by the Foundation is relatively low compared to others, and the vesting structure significantly limits its ability to execute large-scale agreements. This situation puts the Arbitrum Foundation at a disadvantage in competing with other L2s.
However, during the Snapshot vote, we provided feedback that has neither been addressed nor acknowledged. As a result, while we generally support the proposal’s objectives, we are not comfortable voting in favor of it in its current form.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally.
With the transparency the Foundation has shown over the past year, we believe these funds will help the Arbitrum ecosystem grow in the Layer 2 landscape.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.