Proposal: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal

@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.