We voted FOR: These edits with the Voter Enfranchisement Pool make sense and are logical. With acceptance into the MSS framework, the DAO will cut costs as well as start a good precedent.
We voted FOR: Some of the budget increases raise some concern but overall, still a very good showing from season 1 and we believe the team is well suited to deliver again.
We voted FOR: This is an interesting quirk of how only Arbitrum DAO can set up the mapping of L1 → L2 token addresses in the custom gateway for this change to happen. It makes sense we should change to this.
We voted FOR: We think overall, this is a reasonable request in the sense that technical challenges caused the delay. The issue that arises is the one of having rewards when noone else can and while detrimental, don’t think it should be a dealbreaker.
We voted FOR: We have been expecting this program in parallel with the Stylus launch and are excited to see it come up for vote. We are in favor and excited to see all of the initiatives in the future.
We voted AGAINST: This specific situation seems to have been able to be mitigated and it would be rather unfair now to allow them to solely incentive once everyone else’s emissions are gone.
We voted Collect Bids in ETH: This is ideal as diversifying revenue away from the project’s native token is ideal. Excited to see this time boost activated.
We voted Additional funds for one year, 6 months from available funds, Liquidation of RWAs and STEP, New election at $86,581 per year, Abstain: We think there should be additional funds for one year as this was in our opinion community consensus from prior. This doesn’t make sense to us to now redo the prior consensus around this.
We voted IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, Online event, Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain: Above all, there should be an offsite and we think hosting one around a large conference would be the best move. Adding in travel sponsorships is also ideal, for teams that otherwise wouldn’t be able to go.
We voted FOR: The last few iterations of GovHack were really productive and we’re excited to see another version, this time seemingly very price friendly.
We voted FOR: Overall, at the end of the day, we think if the foundation needs a budget to sustain operations or strategy, we are generally in support. Although immensely high, we’re confident the foundation will use their best judgement on executing this fund.
We voted FOR - DIP V1.5: For this second interaction of the program, the 1.5 version seems a little more productive. Our main thing is that the “productive commenting” section seems to be better than just when someone is able to provide a comment.
We voted Whitelist Infura Validator: This whitelists Infura’s validator and should strengthen the security and reliability of the Nova network by using their infrastructure, increasing the number of active validators, and ensuring long-term network stability.
We voted For: Giving TogetherCrew read access to Arbitrum’s Discourse and Discord APIs to conduct research with UCSB will provide valuable insights into community retention and health while respecting privacy; we are also in favor due to the no budget requested. The research will support community development and introduce helpful tools like Hivemind for improving access to historical discussions.
We voted For – Use ENS txt records: Using this way provides a simple and effective way for the Arbitrum DAO to publish its daoURI without needing onchain votes. This method allows the DAO to take control of its metadata efficiently, and keeps the process flexible for future updates through the Foundation.
We voted For: Areta and team have done a great job during the first procurement committee and believe they are fit for this role the second time around.
We voted For: We are in favor of the v1.5 that was voted in and should provide a much more holistic framework of each delegate’s contributions to the DAO.
We voted For: This sprint and two new members will do a great job at evaluating proposals for the DAO and something we are excited to see them involved in this initiative.
We voted Origin Protocol: Going through these submissions, we think a lot of teams have done a great job and are worthy of some level of retroactive compensation. Of them, we thought Origin had the best inclusive request that also seemed very reasonable and considerate when thinking about the whole pot.
We voted For: One of the strongest things about the DAO is the robust community it has built over the years and this budget is needed to ensure the continuation of such.
We voted Funded with 2.09M USDC + Council: We think this is the most appropriate funding gap to address some of the shortfalls and this makes sense in our eyes to keep the critical functions that were previously voted in maintained for this new v2.
We voted Yes: Generally, we see this as an act in best faith code of conduct for the DAO. Everything here is reasonable and we’re confident the charter won’t be used to “strong arm” people into acting too constrained.
We voted For: Voting in line with our prior support for this initiative. It makes sense and we think the budgets are reasonable and in line with expectations.
We voted For: In favor of renewing the ARDC for this next V2. The team demonstrated their skills during v1 and are looking forward to the next iteration’s results.
We voted Against: Our current apprehension can be summed up to too much overhead and uncertainty around a few major points. Additionally, some of the proposed members are rather hostile in relation to questions and we are not a fan of this discussion.
We voted Against: We’re sad to see this situation play out and understand how it is very unfortunate for many members, but the grant was in terms of ARB and this would set a very bad precedent in the future.
We voted Abstain: We have no strong feelings on this. There are a lot of arguments for each side and I think the benefits here could be pretty decent, however, there are also a decent amount of issues and concerns that we think should be addressed.
We voted Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP): We think the initiative and methodology here is super interesting. Very interested specifically in the SOL and OP components so hence the vote for this option. Think some of the other context and scope can be decreased a little.
We voted For, More Salary - no bonus: We think something like this is needed for the DAO and props to the team for taking a stab at it. Above all, we can negotiate and work on the pay part more in the future, but albeit high, it’s not entirely unreasonable. In favor of just having a set price.
We voted Abstain: Similar to our pre on chian snapshot vote, not much has changed in our eyes and we still feel the same way right now with respect to this.
We voted For: This proposal has gone through a lot of iterations. While we still have some concerns from the Snapshots, we think overall the edits and feedback the Entropy team has taken into account push it over the edge to a yes for us.
We voted Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit): We are in favor of renewing as the team has done a really great job and we think the Orbit domain makes sense.
For all of these votes, we voted for people/teams that we have personal good experiences with in the past. We can speak highly to each of their work from our interactions and think they would do a great job on this ARDC renewal
We voted For: We’re glad to see many of our early suggestions go into place and believe this is at a good point. Excited to see the MVP playout in the future!