Disclaimer: I received a two-month ban from Arbitrum for this very proposal, and I was hoping they'd at least improve it a little
But I see changes that have only gotten worse:
- I agree with Paulo’s concerns. What constitutes a change that can be adopted by any number of votes? I believe any financial change must have a 3% majority. And explanations that someone has already discussed it somewhere internally and that everyone has agreed upon shouldn’t influence DAO decisions in any way.
- A strange type of voting - could it turn out that the “NOT” option will have more than 50%, like the other options, since there’s multiple choice?
Also, there’s no “Abstention” option, since someone might be connected to AGV and have a conflict of interest - how can they vote? - You haven’t taken previous comments into account – there are still no KPIs.
You called something members will receive in any case a bonus – it’s simply an additional portion of their salary.
For it to be called a bonus, you need to achieve some results. I think that’s misleading. - If in the previous sentence you planned to increase salaries by 66% from 30,000 to 50,000, now I see that you’re planning a 90,000 ARB bonus, which comes out to $36,000, or a 120% increase.