This AIP 1.2 appears to make some simple and effective changes that make the governance system more explicit and equitable. The wording in the constitution and bylaws is improved, the ability for smaller delegates to post AIPs on-chain is great, and the cleanup of language around AIP 1 is necessary.
Given the limited scope of these changes and lack of non-obvious negative side effects, I think this is a clear For vote for me.
Hey all, we will be doing our community call today at 12PM ET, 16:00 UTC on Google Meetup:
We welcome all the community members, including other delegates, to join the discussion and share your own views. We will be addressing all three AIPs currently under voting.
(and sorry for posting this three times in three AIP threads, I just wanted to fulfil the promise of informing about the call in each thread, I will optimise it better in the future)
Totally agree with AIP
We think that the Constitution looks very good and adheres to the previously stated values.
Our vote is “FOR” it.
L2BEAT votes FOR AIP-1.2 in the Snapshot temperature check.
We have carefully examined the implications of the proposal and engaged in discussions with the community during the Governance Community Call. Below are our remarks:
Pros:
Cons:
We believe this proposal is a step in the right direction and provides clarity towards further management of the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus we are voting in favor of this proposal.
Our vote is in favor .
To learn about the voting procedure of SEEDLatam and L2 en Español, you can read it here.
After the rejection of AIP-1, amendments to the Constitution and the Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association of The Arbitrum Foundation (the “A&R M&A”) and the Bylaws are necessary. These are the foundation for the orderly development of the Foundation and the ArbitrumDAO.
We will express some comments.
Make explicit that the DAO may make a Non-Constitutional Funding AIP with respect to the Administrative Budget Wallet.
We believe it is important for the DAO to have the ability and can make AIPs on the Administrative Budget Wallet. This gives more legitimacy to the ArbitrumDAO.
Lower the threshold number of Votable Tokens required for an AIP to be posted on-chain from 5,000,000 $ARB to 1,000,000 $ARB.
Contributes to the decentralization of the DAO, we believe it is an appropriate value.
Add a new Section 5, which details the Data Availability Committee, including processes for removing and appointing Data Availability Committee members.
As we clarified in AIP-1 and AIP-1.1, we would like the relationship between OffChain Labs and the Data Availability Committee to be detailed. We would also like to know the criteria for selection.
The majority of the points mentioned have already been resolved; our community is more than satisfied.
Nothing to comment on.
As we mentioned earlier, these amendments are necessary to continue the orderly path towards the launch of the Arbitrum Foundation.
totally agree with this AIP
Your support and insightful comments on the proposed changes to the Constitution highlight the importance of decentralization and transparency within the ArbitrumDAO. We are thrilled to see that you have also considered and shared your opinions on the other proposals. Your engagement in the community and dedication to the growth of the Arbitrum Foundation is greatly appreciated. We are excited to continue on this journey with you and see the progress of DAO governance.
The ”DAO” is just a SEC excuse to not sell securities, it’s a racket to, all a scam from the beginning, make cheap transfers, create interest, build pressure, start up, sell out, cash in, ho down, the “market maker” they bought with the 700k $ARB is basically a cross platform AI module that try to rip off gambling addicts, gj bielseboot xD fkn Canadians again, no wonder their wheels are square. They will probably be going to jail to when us gov gets wise.
Regulatory framework are world wide open to Dao.
Popular jurisdiction for creating a legal wrapper for a DAO due to specific regulations for virtual assets, the flexibility of the common law system, low cost, and speed of setup. A foundation is a type of trust that works well as a DAO legal wrapper because it can manage assets for the benefit of others, making it complementary to the concept of DAO. In a foundation, decentralized governance is organized through the DAO constitution and bylaws, with DAO members engaging through various procedures for granting voting rights. popular DAO legal wrapper due to its flexibility, rules for working with virtual assets, speed, and cost-effectiveness.
Listing a company as a security or commodity can bring both advantages and disadvantages. The benefits of listing as a security include access to capital, increased liquidity, and enhanced credibility. However, this comes with regulatory requirements, market volatility, and the pressure to perform. Similarly, listing as a commodity offers price discovery, hedging opportunities, and diversification, but can also involve volatility, physical delivery requirements, and regulatory compliance. Companies must weigh these pros and cons before making the decision to list. By carefully considering these factors, companies can determine whether listing as a security or commodity is the right move for their business.
TLDR , imo
It is a question of law and cost, efficiencies for long terms substainibility to stay profitable for any business model.
I have voted “For”. A framework for how the DAO is a crucial first step and I see no major issues with the structure as outlined.
Gauntlet is supportive of the changes introduced in AIP-1.2. Namely, shifting additional decision-making to the DAO and lowering the proposal threshold requirement. These changes further empower the DAO and lower the barrier to entry for those who want to get more involved in Arbitrum governance.
While tis document does layout a good blueprint for where this DAO is going to go in the future, I do wish that they addressed the concerns that @Sergey_daobox raised about this constitution. If the team want to gain our trust then they need to fully address any legitimate concerns that have been raised.
@krst also raised this concern in his analysis of this document and said that the team did not address any of these concern but that he is still going to vote in favour of it.
I do not have the technical knowledge that these guys have and so I am trusting their judgment that the team for the most part is doing what is necessary to move this DAO forward in a positive direction. I would like to know why the team did not address the issues that have been raised. If they have a good reason for not addressing them then let them share with us why they didn’t.
This is part of the transparency that we are all wanting to see.
I appreciate the rework - and voted in favor.
wow this is great step to a brighter future for #ARB DAO
Gonna mirror my question from the AIP 1.1 thread and ask here as well if we’re ready for the Tally vote. Personally after looking at the snapshot vote performance I really think so!
The engineering for this proposal is now complete and available at ArbitrumFoundation/governance PR #44
This includes the code for updating the constitution hash, the minimum required threshold for proposals, as well as an audit report for it Trail of Bits Audit Report.
This should be going live for a vote soon, but wanted to first share it for discussion.
It is now live for an on-chain vote https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/77049969659962393408182308518930939247285848107346513112985531885924337078488
this good cummunity vote DAO
