After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
First of all, and in line with our internal policy, we decided to abstain as we have economic interests at stake in this proposal.
That said, we would like to add our perspective regarding the discussions that have taken place in recent days:
-
It is true that the program currently saves the DAO from significant operational headaches. Considering that there were over 500 applicants in Season 2, we are certain it would be unfeasible for delegates to analyze, negotiate, and vote on each proposal individually. A few examples of this are the recent proposals in the forum requesting less than 50k, which have been “Sent to Questbook.” Another case is the dozens of Stylus-related proposals that met the same fate due to budgetary constraints.
-
However, the other side of the coin shows that this alone cannot be sufficient reason to rush or delay a third iteration. We understand @Entropy’s argument that the focus should be on significantly improving the program. Given this, building a proper Arbitrum-branded platform for managing grant programs is not something that can be done quickly. The downside of delaying the program itself to achieve this could be very costly for the DAO and for delegates in terms of operational overload (although it is also true that the DAO could simply tell applicants to “wait until the new program is ready,” but that would also be a suboptimal solution).
Perhaps the ideal approach would be that, if this proposal is approved on Tally, a parallel initiative should begin to develop this platform so that it can be used in the future for this program and others (such as the previously mentioned Stylus Sprint).
-
Regarding the alignment of the program with the DAO’s objectives: We believe that the program has demonstrated alignment, even though the objectives are not yet fully defined. The reality is that the DAO (and we dare say also AF/OCL) has shown interest in the verticals proposed by the Domains if we analyze each one:
-
Education, Community Growth, and Events:
- We have participated as a Domain Allocator in these last seasons and have maintained communication with AF on several occasions—either receiving feedback on specific proposals or avoiding overlaps with events already funded by AF.
- We have prioritized content creation related to the latest Arbitrum innovations, such as Stylus and BoLD.
-
Gaming:
- The necessary adjustments have been made to generate synergies rather than overlaps with the GCP.
- This is a good indicator that the Program Manager and other program participants seek to align with the current context of the DAO.
-
Dev Tooling:
- There have been high-quality proposals within Stylus Sprint that could have applied to this Domain, but they were not approved/funded due to budget constraints and because they were deemed a better fit for this program.
- This Domain could leverage approved Stylus Sprint proposals, becoming a tool to amplify the impact of these projects.
-
New Protocols and Ideas:
- This might be the Domain with the least direct relationship to other active DAO initiatives.
- However, it is the Domain with the highest level of innovation and has brought valuable governance tools, such as the Curia Dashboard. Considering this, it’s hard to imagine that it would not be aligned with the DAO’s needs and the broader ecosystem.
-
Orbit Chains:
- We also find it hard to believe that this is not aligned with Arbitrum’s priorities, given all the discussions about improving interoperability within the Arbitrum Stack.
- Also knowing that OCL has shown interest in @Maxlomu’s proposal, this Domain is likely a must-have in this program and in the DAO.
-
Final Thoughts
Yes, it is true—the program has a lot of room for improvement.
It is also true that it is difficult to improve it properly without taking a step back to review past performance and gather feedback on how to move forward. However, in this case, there were at least two or three months to propose improvements before the on-chain vote.
What cannot be ignored is that the program has proven to add value to the ecosystem.
This is not just another initiative that can be shut down overnight for the sake of “cleaning house.”
Despite our abstention, we hope this proposal will be approved.
We are more than willing to support @JoJo and other stakeholders in a parallel improvement process for the next iteration (or even for the second half of the program, if operationally viable).
We understand that the ARDC’s ongoing research into the program will provide valuable insights on what can be improved and what aspects of the program are already strong.