The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the temperature check, but we are open to discussing it further before it goes to onchain vote.
We want to start by saying that we definitely appreciate early contributors and we’re on board with the idea of retroactively rewarding their efforts. However, with the current state of the proposal, we can’t vote in favour of it for the reasons outlined by other delegates as well.
Specifically, we would like to see:
- Some more information about the group of Arbiters and their contributions. We understand that quantifying that data is a difficult task, but right now its non existent.
- A justification and breakdown for the requested amount, since right now it seems that it’s arbitrary.
Moreover, we see this retroactive reward as a gesture of appreciation of great work that those individuals were doing for the community, not necessarily as a compensation for the amount of work they’ve put into it. And as a gesture of appreciation we believe that the proposed amount is too high. We would be much more inclined to support this proposal if the amounts were 10x lower.
On the other hand, if that reward was supposed to be the retroactive compensation for the work they’ve put, we should rather have a clear and open framework for incentivising such activities in the future and based on that framework assess individual contributions for retro compensation.
With the voting deadline upon us, we’ve chosen to vote against for the reasons outlined above, and we hope that these issues will be addressed and the proposal resubmitted for the DAO to review and vote on its updated version. We are happy to discuss this proposal and provide any additional feedback if needed, we would like to remind that we’re available every Thursday at 3pm UTC at our Arbitrum Office Hours (https://meet.google.com/jkj-nnop-arc).