Proposal: Accelerating Arbitrum - leveraging Camelot as an ecosystem hub to support native builders

[olimpio]

@Myrddin

Regarding Jones and a potential conflict of interest, yes they would be getting ARB incentives on their pool and I understand your point, but in this case where would you draw the line?
Does it mean protocols should not vote for their self interest?
Should all of Camelot’s partners, which represent a large part of the ecosystem builders, not be allowed to participate since they would all benefit from this grant?

This has not been estipulated by the Foundation. However, it is of my opinon that Protocols should not use ARB they got in their airdrop to vote for themselves or for proposals that directly benefits them. They should Abstain.

For example, of Camelot’s 9M ARB, 7M is from the community, which I strongly think should have a voice. In Jones’ case, 2.3M of 2.4M is ARB inside of the Multisignature that was a self delegation.

It seems we will encounter this situation with several Roundtable members, I am bringing this to discussion because the impact on proposals is not negligible. It does not present a conflict of interest that protocols use ARB airdropped to them to vote for themselves in Snapshot?

I believe the Foundation could be more involved in guidance on these matters, for example creating a Code of Conduct? @stonecoldpat

@Youyou761

is just me or everyone keeps talking about this incentives framework, but no one seems to know who is making it? Seems like a great excuse to sit on hands and do nothing

@Teket1886

Allow me to inquire, who will take charge of creating this framework or establishing DAO guidelines? YOU ARE THE DAO.

I encourage you to take a look at the last two Snapshot proposals to find the path for a Framework(s) in the works:

• Arbitrum DAO Grants - Delegated Domain Allocation by Questbook
• [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1