I have decided to vote against the proposal.
Here are the reasons why:
This proposal is requesting a Grant from the Arbitrum DAO
A framework for protocols to request grants has still not been deployed and instrumented.
What is a framework? A process that establishes guidelines that protocols/organizations must follow when requesting a grant.
Examples of policies that could be established by a framework:
i. Protocols need to explain what they will do with the grant
ii. They report progress every X month
iii. Can grants be self-delegated?
iv. Can ARB tokens be sold in every grant category?
v. Is there any lock-up?
There are two Grants Frameworks that passed temp-check in Snapshot
Guidelines for protocols to request grants are on their way to being approved. I think it’s prudent to wait until there is a clear ruleset and that all grant-request organizations should be evaluated the same.
They are going to use the ARB received for liquidity incentives
As a general idea, I like LM. They clearly attract TVL, which of course leaves the chain when LM ends — but some people do stick.
Also, other chains are doing incentives, so not considering it is a disadvantage.
Conflict of interest?
As there is no clear ruleset created by the Foundation, there are gray areas which (in my opinion) can be improved.
At the time of writing, top 2 voters are:
• Address 0x2e3B: (FOR) 9M $ARB
• Address 0x5396: (FOR) 2.4M $ARB
0x2e3B (9M) is from Camelot.
They are voting to give themselves the grant. I don’t think this should be prohibited, since the voting power comes directly from their community.
Shouldn’t their own community have a vote? I think of course they do. Otherwise, it’d be censoring.
0x5396 (2.4M) is 0x_ultra, from Jones DAO.
2.3M of 2.4M voting power is a yesterday self-delegation from their multi-signature.
2M ARB is from the ARB airdrop.
Jones is getting ARB incentives on their pool.
Is this considered a conflict of interest?
https://twitter.com/JonesDAO_io/status/1638267939177615366
Every protocol should be analyzed with the same rubric
With Pluralistic Labs and QuestBook’s proposals having passed temp-check, there will probably be a grant’s framework soon.
These 2 proposals set the foundations for analyzing and approving grants.
9M ARB amount is reasonable to me
Optimism invests millions of $OP for LM/grants. It’s important to keep this context in mind to be able to focus on growth.
Also, Camelot is NOT proposing incentives to $GRAIL, which eliminates the direct conflict of interest price element.
They do, however, already own 2.1M ARB that they received on the initial airdrop.
This could potentially be used for LM incentives until there’s time to better evaluate.
https://debank.com/profile/0x03ff2d78afb69e0859ec6beb4cf107d3741e97ab
Camelot’s trajectory is undeniable
They have worked hard to advance the Arbitrum ecosystem. They are the top 3 DEX by TVL.
I think they should receive a grant for LM incentives down the road.
Blocking well-thought-out and rational proposals is capping growth.
They updated the proposal with Transparency reports, KPIs, and milestones.
This was a very good way to improve the proposal.
Processes clarity
The Arbitrum DAO does not have enough clarity, rules, or frameworks -just yet- to be distributing millions of dollars in the situation as-is.
We should first focus on enabling a process that will ultimately be better for all participants involved.
The final reflection is:
Camelot will probably end up receiving a grant, and I will most likely be voting FOR.
The reason I decided against it (atm) is to allow the DAO to have better processes to analyze Grants. There is a time-sensitive element, but we don’t have to rush.