First of all, I want to acknowledge the significant effort and dedication the @ArbitrumHub.io team has shown in refining this proposal multiple times, taking into account community feedback and working to address previous concerns. However, while I recognize ArbitrumHub’s importance to the ecosystem, I must vote against this proposal. The main reasons are:
- Even if considerable efforts were made to reduce the budget (from $79,000/month in the 1st proposal to the current $19,200/month), I feel it’s still excessive for maintenance work, even considering the portal’s significance.
- Regarding the $40K retroactive funding request, I find it difficult to support this allocation. As several delegates have already pointed out, multiple sections of the website are currently not up to date, and while this may be attributed to resource constraints, it makes it challenging to assess and justify the value provided over the past period. Additionally, the analytics data provided in the proposal doesn’t demonstrate substantial added value or extensive results that would justify such retroactive compensation.
While I recognize ArbitrumHub’s potential value as a central information resource for the ecosystem, I think we should explore a more cost-effective approach. Rather than fully funding an external team, we could focus on covering basic infrastructure costs plus a modest allowance for platform enhancements. I suggest opening a competitive bidding process to explore alternative solutions, combined with implementing small rewards for active DAO participants who contribute to maintenance and onboarding efforts. This would not only reduce costs but also leverage existing community expertise while fostering greater ecosystem engagement.