From @Areta’s perspective, we believe that providing “compensation” for ARB token value drops due to market fluctuations is not a good precedent for the DAO to set, simply because when taken to its logical conclusion (i.e., other projects asking for similar compensation), it is not scalable or sustainable for the DAO.
The ask is: “can the DAO continue to compensate future grantees or recipients of ARB allocations for price fluctuations?”. We don’t think the answer to that is yes. To re-echo @Nyx and @thedevanshmehta, the price of crypto tokens are naturally volatile and dealing with this is one of the standard (though unfortunate) experiences for parties that operate within this ecosystem.
Also, if restitution is the goal here, why request for $5,000 in ARB rather than an amount equivalent to what was specifically lost due to the operational delays?
We express our sympathies for the sour experiences, but it doesn’t feel like the right approach to request the DAO to compensate for these. If at all, it seems more reasonable to request for what the grantees would have been entitled to but lost due to program inefficiency?
Overall, we recognise the uniqueness of the situation at hand here and why it seems like this proposal is the only path forward. As a recommendation, you may want to consider reframing this as a grant request directly from the DAO, explaining your peculiar situation, referencing your already successful grant application, and seeking funds directly from the DAO to complete what you were unable to finish due to the run down of events.