We don’t flag votes or accounts we only flag proposals where we found a malicious link.
2 Likes
I support this proposal. I believe it’s a relatively low-cost expense that holds significant value, as it’s a tool we use daily. Being on this plan will also help maintain our positioning on the platform (Snapshot).
2 Likes
To clarify, the constitution does not mention that Arbitrum Foundation is responsible for all subscriptions. Rather, the AF handles certain subscriptions in a neutral, supportive role to benefit the ArbitrumDAO
3 Likes
We believe there is a good cost-opportunity in this proposal.
Because the Arbitrum Foundation seems open to covering the costs, we believe that is the best path forward to avoid the need for the proposers to go through a long governance process for such a small amount.
3 Likes
yes, I updated the proposal to show that the Arbitrum Foundation should pay for this, under the clause stated here What is The Arbitrum Foundation? | Arbitrum DAO - Governance docs
So basically, if there is enough support showed here on the Forum, the Arbitrum Foundation should pay for this subscription, and renew it every year.
So until Thursday next week, on the 1st of November, we should collect comments in this thread, showing support, and then the Arbitrum Foundation can just execute it then, or we can put this up for a temperature check vote on snapshot, and then then Arbitrum Foundation can execute it with the legitimacy of a favorable offchain vote result.
@raam do you think there is a need to take this to an offchain vote on snapshot?
3 Likes
do you feel that the small voters with <0.1 ARB (most likely bots) should be flagged? why?
1 Like
As mentioned above, this is something that the Foundation would be doing out its own discretion, for the benefit of the DAO, so there is no need to go to Snapshot.
5 Likes
This is an excellent solution for the Foundation to cover. Appreciate the responsiveness from the AF and Gauntlet supports this proposal.
2 Likes
Technically if you want you could enforce that voters have at least a certain amount of ARB token to be able to vote, you could do that with a voting validation strategy or a voting strategy.
1 Like
While we are typically against extra spending on principal, this is a rare case where the spend is low enough and the potential value high enough that it can be worth it.
We are in support of this proposal, but suggest a review after one year to see whether the additional features were actually used.
2 Likes
We are not saying they should be flagged, just inquiring if Turbo would allow for it.
1 Like
Agreed. the Arbitrum DAO is very active, with a good number of users participating in each poll, but the current Snapshot limit does make the voting process less than smooth. Upgrading to the Turbo program would not only increase the character limit of the proposal, but it would also make Arbitrum DAO more visible on the Snapshot page, which would help to attract more attention from new users.
In particular, if the character limit for long-form proposals, for example, could be raised from 10,000 to 40,000 characters, it would prevent many proposals from being cropped, and make them clearer for voters to understand.
The cost wasn’t too high either - the $6,000 a year ARB spend was worth it for these optimizations. These enhancements are necessary for our DAO governance environment. I support this proposal and think it can be pushed further for implementation.
2 Likes
We support the AF offer to fund the upgrade
2 Likes
It’s much needed, and the upgrade is a great opportunity to greatly improve governance.
Arbitrum DAO has been a big user of the Snapshot platform, with millions of votes cast, and naturally more features are needed. By spending $6,000 on an upgrade, we can get more useful features such as longer proposal text, higher visibility on the front page, a dedicated proxy management page, a customizable interface, and more. This will not only improve governance efficiency, but also make Arbitrum DAO more professional and give members a better experience. The ability to be shown as a Gold DAO on the homepage should highlight ARB’s industry status.
Suggestion to add user feedback mechanism: We can also consider collecting feedback from members on the Turbo program on a regular basis, to see which features are more popular or need to be optimized, which can help to continuously improve the governance experience!
2 Likes
Sounds like this won’t be going to snapshot, so signaling support here. The word count alone is worth the extra premium, and even if there wasn’t much tangible benefit I think it’s important to support entities like this that are immensely integral to the DAO if the cost is reasonable. As we ultimately heavily rely on something like Snapshot to be a viable product long-term
2 Likes
I fully support this. As the most active DAO, Arbitrum DAO should be at the top of the page. I wonder if they could increase the character limit for voting justifications so that delegators can quickly check the rationale behind decisions without having to click on forum links.
2 Likes
I’m supporting this proposal, the cost is minimum compared to the benefits we’d be receiving. The AF should cover the cost, if not, we should def cover it.
3 Likes
the vote reason character limit is much bigger (1000 characters instead of 100) in the new snapshot version available at snapshot.box
1 Like
@Arbitrum given the positive sentiment in this thread, could you confirm that the Arbitrum Foundation will commit to execute and fund this proposal in a reasonable amount of time? let’s say, a maximum of 3 weeks from today?
3 Likes
I agree with this proposal, as others have commented, the cost is minimal and it would not only bring Arbitrum to the top of the page but it would also validate it socially. Just like being validated on X!
If the AF doesn’t cover it, I agree with this. It’s not much.
Cheers to all!