I just cast my vote in favor on Snapshot for the following reason:
I empathize with the challenges caused by the market correction… it’s a situation I can relate to. I believe we need new procedures in place to prevent similar issues from arising in the future, as setbacks like this can discourage participants. While I don’t know the specifics of why payments were delayed, I support finding a solution that benefits everyone involved.
I vote FOR this proposal. While I understand the delegate’s point that a grant denominated in token amounts should not be altered, the DAO must also uphold its responsibilities. It is unacceptable for projects to face payment delays of up to seven months.
Although there is concern about setting a bad precedent, the Arbitrum DAO does not operate on a system of jurisprudence, meaning different circumstances might lead to different decisions. Covering the gap is a minor expense for the DAO, and it demonstrates a commitment to supporting its community and builders
We’re voting Abstain, as the proposal has both positive and negative aspects and its difficult for us to make a strong decision on it.
Arguments in Favor
- Delays and Financial Hardship: Grantees faced 3–7 months of delays due to DAO inefficiencies, leading to financial losses from ARB value decline.
- Ethical Obligation: Supporting grantees aligns with DAO goals and addresses fairness, particularly for those in emerging markets.
- Value Creation: Approval could boost the ecosystem and enhance the DAO’s reputation.
- Process Improvement: Lessons from this case could refine future grant programs through better communication and payment processes.
Arguments Against
- Token Risk: Grantees assumed ARB price risks; compensating losses could set an unsustainable precedent.
- Future Focus: Prioritizing future improvements over retroactive compensation may be more constructive.
- Unclear Agreements: Lack of specific payout timelines weakens the argument for accountability in price fluctuations.
Additional Considerations
- Transparency: Addressing communication and payment clarity is vital for trust and operational efficiency.
- Grant Design: Using stablecoins for grants in the future could reduce volatility risks and enhance financial stability for recipients.
Summary
-there’s arguments both for and against this proposal. I have to say as delegates, we ourselves are assuming price risk, and the original grant also was in ARB, so grantees should have understood that.
Nevertheless, its not a super clear cut case in our opinion so we vote to abstain.
Vote: Yes
The amount is small, the compensation can be exemplary, and the rules will be clarified subsequently.
We oppose this proposal as it could set a precedent for compensation requests based on market performance. While we recognize the KYC and payment delays, these concerns might not have surfaced during an upward price trend. Approving this proposal could lead to similar requests from paid delegates and MS signers, who received only one-third of the promised compensation in the Delegate Incentive Program v1.
I am voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
I understand the effort that went into making the case and empathize with the issue faced by the grantees due to the loss of nominal value of ARB, as I have personally experienced this myself when receiving compensation in ARB for providing services to the DAO during the LTIPP.
That said, the agreed-upon arrangement was to receive ARB, and if the price of ARB had increased, there would not have been a proposal to return the excess based on that USD expectation.
I am also concerned about the precedent this sets. During 2024, the DAO distributed a significant amount of ARB through incentive programs, and all grantees had the expectation of receiving more (in USD terms) than what they ultimately received.
Lastly, the unlocks of vested ARB that occurred during 2024 were neither hidden nor undisclosed. These were openly discussed, and I believe it is the responsibility of anyone with expectations of receiving a nominal USD value to be aware of the factors that could affect that expectation.
This case provides valuable lessons on how incentive programs should be structured, as well as on the service providers managing them. For that, I truly appreciate your efforts in pushing this forward.
I voted “FOR” this proposal.
While I understand the reasoning behind remembering that the grant was defined in ARB, it’s important to note that the grantees experienced an unreasonably long delay in receiving it. The lesson to be learned is that we need to review the DAO’s processes to ensure timely disbursement of funds in the future.
I voted “For” this proposal. I believe we should prioritize the community. The amount requested isn’t much, and the DAO can afford it. In crypto, waiting months for grants can be risky because market fluctuations can seriously affect projects. By the way, DAO should learn from this to move fast as well as prioritize the community initiatives.
Voting AGAINST for the reasons listed earlier. When we make a committment in ARB terms, we stick to that. When we make one in dollars, we stick to that. No point muddling the 2
We will be voting against this proposal. While we understand and sympathize with the delays experienced by ArbitrumDAO minigrants winners, compensating grant recipients sets a problematic precedent for the DAO as the described issues stem from problems with the ThankARB program and the volatility of ARB, neither of which are in the DAO’s control. Applying and receiving grants denominated in ARB carry inherent risk and many DAO contributors have faced this burden over the last twelve months. This has led to foundational changes in how the DAO structures grant budgets and payout, which has shown the DAO’s adaptive approach to deal with these problems.
the problem is not the denomination of the grant in ARB and it’s price going down. the problem was that it took way way way longer than it should for the grantees to get paid. the restitution is for the lateness mostly, not so much for the fact that the value of ARB went down.
Appreciate this comment @paulofonseca as the focus of this restitution proposal is on the extreme delays, stress and pain points in team morale and planning inflicted on the grant winners as a result, significant effort on my part as a grantee advocate in organizing and providing this feedback to the DAO, and potential for the grantees to execute their projects as intended.
We understand inherent price volatility in every crypto and grant project, yet that is not the basis for this proposal.
The DIP v1 issue is not the same however. This issue would be more akin to the DIP v1 promising to pay delegates on the 13th-14th of each following month, but for logistical reasons just deciding to not pay us until the end of the 6 month period.
I’m seeing a lot of rationales that I don’t think understand the point isn’t that the ARB price went down, but that the payments got delayed. I completely get some of the counterpoints, but IMO it’s important that no votes are understanding this point.
This proposal feels problematic to me. It sets an unworkable precedent for the DAO to be held responsible for market fluctuations outside its control.
Equally, the proposal is based on a market price for Arb tokens which is now outdated.
I’m ultimately voting in favour as I believe supporting builders is important (we need more projects building on Arbitrum and here we have a few that need support) and there were serious payment delays. However, I believe this should NOT be used as a precedent for future proposals as it’s not on the basis of damages nor restitution that I’m voting for, it’s simply on the basis of supporting builders.
If that is the case, why are they citing the dollar value of ARB at different points of time?
The way to do it if it’s only delays is calculate interest on the ARB (say 1% per month delayed) and give that for the delayed months
The justification I see is that the price was higher earlier and so they deserve restitution on dollar basis, which is untenable
After consideration, I believe that the DAO should focus on improving its future processes rather than providing retroactive compensation for past administrative delays. I’m echoing this argument:
I understand that the delays caused frustration and challenges for the grantees but compensating them with additional funds is not the appropriate solution. The amount requested to counterbalance the inconvenience is subjective and as @404DAO commented, it sets a problematic precedent. Deploying extra funds in response to delays is neither sustainable nor in the best interest of the DAO.
Instead, we should offer continuous support to these builders through future grants and resources based on their commitment and progress. This approach aligns with our mission, focused in innovation and growth within the ecosystem.
I understand and respect @paulofonseca’s view that “the restitution is for the lateness mostly,” but in my opinion, lateness alone does not warrant additional funding.
The argument that the requested amount is relatively small and the DAO has substantial funds does not justify compensation. We should focus on rectifying the underlying administrative issues so that grant processes are delivered in time and efficiently moving forward.
Therefore, I am voting AGAINST the proposal for additional compensation and advocate for strategic improvements to prevent such delays in the future.
yeah I agree with this rationale… but in crypto, with the volatility it inherently has, I feel that the interest amount for a delay like this should not be 1% per month… I feel it should be more like 10% a month =) which would probably put the restitution amounts even higher to be honest.
I also agree that passing this proposal would send a positive message of “Arbitrum actually supports builders, even when things go wrong for some reason outside of it’s control” and that is worth way more than the ~$28k ARB this proposal is asking for.
I’m voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
This is a tough situation and a hard choice for me. I empathize with the affected teams and appreciate the effort karakrysthal has put into advancing this proposal. However, as others have mentioned in this thread, approving it could set a problematic precedent for future proposals. While the requested amount is small, I don’t want to take that risk. I hope we can learn from this experience to prevent similar issues in the future.
volatility cuts both ways, so we can’t use that as justification for a higher interest rate
in business if customers delay paying tax they need to pay an interest on that amount. The same principle can apply here but i don’t see that as the justification. Instead, they are proposing to be compensated based on a past dollar value that ARB had.
Voting against for the reasons above.