Proposal: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal

First and foremost, I want to stress the importance of retroactively rewarding DAO participants who help in the ecosystem in any capacity. Every DAO member has contributed to helping Arbitrum get where it is today.

I strongly support this proposal and what it represents, but not in its current form. I have voted Against this temp-check and for the time being, and I am open to revisiting this in the next iterations. I believe in the importance of supporting the DAO through retroactive rewards to contributors.

A few points:

  • Although there is a spreadsheet (Arbiter.xlsx - Google Sheets) It is unclear who the final beneficiaries of this retroactive reward are. It would be very helpful for transparency to have all of the 25 estimated people (formally) detailed in the proposal.

  • It is unclear what did each user contribute, specifically. The bullet points outlining a summary of all that has been done are very clear, but it lacks specifics that will help delegates gauge the value contributed.

  • It would greatly help the voting and decision-making process if the proposals could outline concrete actions taken by Arbiters, with links and real-world examples. Better and more concrete metrics would be extremely appreciated.

  • Echoing comments and concerns posted by ITU Blockchain and Curia. Should the ARB distribution be uniform considering Arbiters had different levels of participation? A more detailed approach to all of the contributions and the people involved will help a lot to bring more clarity to these points.

As said by Mysterymen there is some difficulty in measuring contributions due to the lack of documentation through time, is there nothing that can be done (as a group) to try and reconstruct it?

Looking forward to the next steps and comments to be able to move forward with retroactive rewards for DAO contributors.

Edit: I want to clearly add that I would vote in favour of this proposal should we have a (better) complete list of recipients with their contributions greater measured.


Hi @olimpio We appreciate your feedback (and the great work that you do for the crypto community)


The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote in Favor of this proposal at the Temperature Check.


We believe it is important to retroactively reward Arbitrers who collaborated in the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem in its early days. These early collaborations are important and beneficial to the ecosystem and should be recognised and compensated.


We would like to clarify that this decision is subject to change for voting in Tally, as we would like the proposal to include the following details in the next phase:

  • List of the 25 members, with their discord user, Twitter (or other social media if possible) and the address where they will receive the funds
  • Criteria considered for the election of the members
  • Description of their contributions and tasks they performed. Link and metrics, we know this is difficult, but we believe there is surely data to collect.
  • Multisig address where funds and signatories will be received


We should keep in mind as DAO that this kind of proposal opens the door for other contributors to ask for retroactive payments for past contributions. Perhaps in the future, we should establish a general framework to be able to filter this type of proposal.


Hey @ITUblockchain a couple points I can hopefully help to shed light on based on what I know:

  1. No new Arbiters have been added after September 2022, and no new Arbiters will be added. In terms of future contribution, it can be seen as a legacy or OG role in the discord, but the proposal in discussion is for a retroactive reward and not a future or ongoing one, so this fact wouldn’t be too valuable I don’t think. I can’t speak to the criteria of how they were selected as that was substantially before my time.

  2. For Ambassador program, it isn’t set up in a way to reward users through ARB incentives, rather there is budget allocated for Ambassadors to submit applications for hosting events, workshops, education and things of that nature so that those costs can be covered and supported by the Foundation. Furthermore the Ambassador program isn’t for acquiring customer support or moderation, but rather for spreading Arbitrum/Web3 adoption globally through content, education, workshops, events etc. For moderation and customer support we recently (summer of 2023) began hiring full-time moderators at the Foundation.


Thank you, Elias, for clarifying the two points we mentioned.


great to see here community who are supporting Arb Eco Sys :+1:


Update on criteria - Essentially in the first year+ the Discord needed help with active moderation and community engagement due to bandwidth, and there were people (Arbiters) who were quite active and asked to help out, and thus the role was incepted and given to people who wanted to participate with a recognized role.


We would like to respond to the issues raised by the above representatives as follows:

Thank you guys very much for your input. We have re-collected more contribution information, as well as the arbiters respective wallets, discord, twitter, etc., and added them to the original proposal contribution list, but this is only a portion of the contribution data that we were able to collect again, and we are very thankful for the support of the DAO representatives!

List of Arbiters’ partial contributions and arbiter profile info,For the sake of DAO reps checking for updates, we’ve listed them separately :point_down:
arbiter simple example table of contributions in different categories - Google Sheets

arbiter simple example table of contributions in different categories - Google Sheets

  1. Why aren’t more specific links to Arbiter’s contributions provided?
    When we first became Arbiter, we all joined and contributed to Offchain Labs out of love for Offchain Labs, but Arbiters didn’t know each other and didn’t realize that OffChain Labs would issue airdrop rewards in the future, so we didn’t designate a person to manage and save the information of everyone’s contribution, Arbiter himself did not save his own contributions, and due to some of Arbiter’s local regulatory policies on the cryptocurrency industry, a lot of information is lost and invalid, So some incomplete information that we didn’t provide.

  2. Why are rewards not distributed equally according to each individual’s contribution?
    As mentioned above, due to a lot of data loss and failure, some Arbiters have been helping other members as supporters of the discord community, but some Arbiters have not been serving the community as supporters of the discord community, but rather have been conducting AMA’s and promotional activities, etc. outside of the discord, and to singularly evaluate the contribution of a certain Arbiter, it would be Obviously not fair, this will directly erase the results of their contributions, so Arbiter unanimously decided to submit all the contributions in summary and the rewards are also evenly distributed, so as not to destroy the unity of everyone but also to let the Arbiter who has made contributions to get the rewards.

  3. why ask for 500,000 Arb bonus and not more or less?
    We finalized the total reward of 500,000Arb based on other communities’ rewards ratios for early contributors (e.g. Across allocating 20M ACX to the community) and based on Arbitrum’s benchmarks for initial on-chain activity rewards, and we think it’s fair to get 2x the max airdrop amount and even conservative considering the time and effort Arbiter has invested in making the community a better place. and effort, this may even be conservative. It is important to understand that the ARB token is a governance token and as such it represents voting rights. From this perspective, the allocation of 20,000 ARB tokens appears to be proportional to the impact Arbiter has had and the time, energy and effort they have invested, and this voting power will give Arbiters a greater say in the future of Arbitrum.

  4. Why does this proposal not have a framework for Arbiter’s future contribution programs and rewards?
    We are simply seeking a one-time retroactive reward from the DAO for our contributions over the last 2 years. The Arbitrum foundation has recently hired their own moderation/customer support team, and have initiated an Ambassador program. Therefore planning future contributions is not something we can assess at this time as Arbiters.

  5. Will rewards be distributed to multi-signature wallets?
    We will ask Foundation to collect all the wallet address’ and provide to the DAO for verification

Additionally, the Arbiter with Discord ID BILLY#7943 has voluntarily forfeited his reward and split it equally amongst the other Arbiters, so we will be modifying the original forum proposal and will be changing the 25 Arbiters in the original proposal to 24, so that the final calculation will be: 20,833.333 $ARB tokens per member x 24 Discord Arbiter = 500,000 $ARB

@ITUblockchain @cattin @olimpio @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth @krst @BlockworksResearch @Michigan_Blockchain @Curia @GFXlabs @eli_defi


@TreasureDAO @PrincetonBlockchain @gauntlet @Plutus

1 Like

Are Arbiter contributions solely housed within Discord? If so, it may be worth looking into one of the tracking solutions for Discord, at least, it can give some data on who has had activity in what channels. Will have to run it by Offchain though as you typically need elevated discord permissions, who knows maybe they already have metrics on the Discord Server.

Some that I have used in the past and can run metrics retroactively.
Common Room ← Probably best for this purpose


Hello and thank you for your interest. As stated in our proposal, arbiter contribution in the Arbitrum discord is only partial. If we only track the contribution data in the discord, we cannot fully summarize all the contributions of the arbiter. At the same time, there are many cases of missing contributions, so it is relatively unfair to determine the amount of contributions based on discord data alone.

After discussion and agreement among all arbiter, we have adopted the method of equal sharing.

Of course, if there are more contribution plans in the future, we are willing to use the model you provided, but the current model is not very applicable to the current arbiter contribution situation. @dk3


Hey Arbiters, congrats on the on-chain AIP being created on Tally!

As a next step, please email with the following template.

Email Title: Early Contributor: Arbiter Proposal - Discord ID <#XXXX>

Arbiter Discord ID:
Wallet Address receiving payment if proposal passes:

The Discord ID and wallet address should be as per this spreadsheet.


Plutus has decided to vote against this proposal.

While we appreciate and agree with the sentiment that active community members that have contributed in different forms are important and valued, we believe there are several critical issues with the proposal in its current form. These concerns largely align with points that other delegates have brought up.

We believe that the amount being requested is quite arbitrary, and that the actual contributions of different individuals and how these compare to each other are impossible to properly quantify based on the current proposal. A more comprehensive list of contributions and significantly more detail should be required, especially when the amounts asked for are substantial.

In principal we strongly support rewarding early, current and future contributors, but feel like the proposal needs to be amended to address the critical concerns brought up by a variety of delegates and the community.

1 Like

Hello, please check our reply here. We have explained your doubts.

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

As we stated in our original response during temp check, we believe the requested amount is too large. We hoped to see a revised proposal at the on-chain vote as we really believe in retroactively rewarding early contributors and our concerns are around the amount, as well as the process in which we assess the contributions to reach that amount.

However, since no such revision took place, we’ll stand by our decision and vote against this proposal in the on-chain vote.

Given that it’s a decision we did not make lightly, we wanted to provide some transparency in the information and thinking that led us to it.

  1. In our opinion, retroactive contributions are to be seen as an appreciation gesture rather than compensation. Arbiters were contributing to the DAO voluntarily and without any promise of compensation from the DAO. Of course, we appreciate their contributions immensely, especially since it was at a time when the DAO was still at its infancy. It’s important to make the distinction between compensating work to be done , and rewarding contributions made.

  2. Second thing is that we do not fully understand why the calculations are based off of 2x the max airdrop amount. As the airdrop can be interpreted as the reward for early contribution as well, it would seem only fair to have the cap on those rewards at the same level.

  3. We also tried to asses the proposal by trying to think whether we’d support it if it was forward-facing instead of retroactive. We asked ourselves whether we’d support funding 24 individuals for vaguely defined contributions in Arbitrum Discord for a year with 500,000 ARB. Although it’s not directly comparable to the case at hand, it’s an interesting exercise which can help gain some perspective.

  4. Lastly, since the amount per individual is ~20,000 ARB, we thought whether there are individuals in the DAO that received similar funding for contributions, and then we tried comparing the contributions (to the extent that they can be compared) to see if there are any discrepancies.

One such case was the compensation proposed for spearheading the STIP, from organising the working group, moving the proposal through the governance process and through different iterations, overseeing the execution, and coordinating with delegates. It was a lot of work in a very short period of time which arguably had a lot of impact in the DAO.

The sample of contributions provided by Arbiters in the discussion would be comparable if they represented the contributions of a single person. However, if we are to mentally divide the work among the 25 Arbiters, then the 20,000 ARB/person (500k ARB in total) request seems too high.

With that in mind, and while we understand that the contributions Arbiters made were more open-ended and it’s way more difficult to measure the impact they had, we feel there’s a discrepancy between the 20,000 ARB and the value delivered in each case.

TL;DR: We’re voting against the proposal, but if the Arbiters were to submit another proposal where the ask amount was significantly reduced and/or clearer information about the contributions of each Arbiter, we’d be much more inclined to vote in its favor.


Where do you get the 1 year come from? It has been mentioned many times that Arbiters have been contributing for 2-3 years.

1 Like

That was actually just a mistake on our end, but while we’re at it - according to the mentioned spreadsheet, activity spans from 156 days to 969 days, with an average of 553 days which translates to 1.5 years on average, with just 3 of the mentioned Arbiters being active for more than 2 years.


Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) will vote AGAINST this proposal on Tally.

We would like to express our appreciation for the proposal to retroactively fund contributors for their early efforts in Arbitrum. Recognizing and rewarding the dedication of these individuals is a commendable initiative. However, after careful consideration and in alignment with concerns raised by other delegates, we find ourselves unable to support the proposal in its current form for the following reasons:

  • Lack of Information on Arbiters and Their Contributions: We understand and appreciate the inherent challenges in quantifying contributions, but the current proposal lacks essential details about the group of Arbiters and their specific contributions. We advocate for a more comprehensive and transparent breakdown of individual efforts and achievements, evidenced by concrete examples and links to work products. This additional information is crucial for enhancing transparency and enabling delegates to make informed decisions.
  • Absence of Justification and Detailed Breakdown for Requested Amount: It is unclear how the proposed amount was determined or how the allocation to individual Arbiters is directly correlated with individual or group contributions to ensure a fair and equitable distribution. To ensure fairness and transparency in the retroactive reward process and to set a sound precedent for future contributors seeking retroactive payment, we urge a more detailed and justified breakdown of the requested amount.
  • Incentivise Ongoing Support: As supported by other delegates, we advocate for the establishment of a clear and open framework to incentivize future contributions. In cases where responsibilities predominantly involve Discord moderation or other forward-looking activities, we propose exploring a continuous and sustainable compensation program that encourages ongoing contributions rather than a one-time retroactive payment.

In summary, while we share the principle of rewarding contributors, we believe the proposal requires amendments to address critical concerns raised by various delegates and the community. We encourage a thorough review and revision of the proposal to provide the necessary transparency into the retroactive payment as well as outlining a framework for compensation for future contributions.

As the voting deadline approaches, we have chosen to vote against the current proposal. We remain open for discussions and available to provide additional feedback as required.


553 days. That’s quite a lot! Appreciate you taking the time to dive deeper.

1 Like

Absolutely! And this contribution deserves to be rewarded. I want to make it clear that we don’t argue on the essence, but rather on the details.