It says I have no voting power, but I do have $ARB What do I need? I’ve also joined three communities on Snapshot 
I’m definitely FOR it 
1 Like
As ChamaDAO, we empathize with the affected grantees and recognize the challenges caused by delayed payments; however, we are voting against this proposal. Compensating for ARB value fluctuations retroactively creates a precedent that makes the DAO responsible for market volatility—a factor beyond its control.
While the delays highlight a need for process improvements, allocating additional funds to address token value changes diverts resources from sustainable treasury management. We believe the focus should remain on fixing systemic issues to ensure future grant rounds run smoothly and efficiently, rather than on reactive spending.
I’m voting against this proposal for several reasons.
As a judge who participated in the program, I believe I have a unique perspective on this matter. During the process, it became evident that a significant portion of applicants were likely fraudulent or created projects solely to exploit the funding. This was essentially an attempt to seize funds without delivering genuine value.
Anyone who applied to be a judge, regardless of the number of votes they received (even zero), was eligible to become a judge. There were even instances of sybil attacks on the judge board that were uncovered during the program.
I understand that some applicants who are requesting financial restitution may have had legitimate projects. However, this doesn’t negate the fact that the overall system was flawed. After almost a year, we can no longer thoroughly investigate all winners and determine which ones are legitimate and which ones are not. Given the choice between allocating more funds to all winners or none, I believe none is the appropriate option. We must implement stricter rules to prevent individuals from attempting to exploit the DAO.
Even if they are requesting a relatively small amount, I believe this is a matter of principle. It’s crucial to uphold integrity in the process to safeguard the DAO’s funds and reputation. This is why I chose to vote against this proposal on Snapshot.
If we intend to replicate a similar program in the future, it’s essential to approach it with greater caution and establish clearer guidelines to avoid these kinds of issues. The entire program, as it existed, was problematic.
1 Like
I voted against this proposal.
I can empathize with the teams and the drop in token price, but Arbitrum DAO cannot be held accountable for that. The fund deployment may have an area of improvement, but the payment method was clearly in ARB.
Voted Against: It is unfortunate that this situation occurred, and I really feel for the builders. The biggest issue with this situation is not the price swing but keeping the builders in the dark for so long. We should do better with communication. However, paying out financial restitution is not the way to go here. We, as a DAO, cannot vote on such small cases. I think this is a waste of time. Overall, I believe this situation has hurt Arbitrum’s reputation. Let’s learn from it and move on.
Too long delay in ARB payouts is very unfortunate and understandably painful for recipients. But the grant rules were clear about the payment being in ARB tokens. As @chamadao said, the proposed restitution would create a dangerous precedent. For that reason, I vote against the proposal.
While empathizing with you with regards to the delays and the loss of grant value, gTrade is voting no for this proposal, echoing many others’ sentiments. The grant proposal was denominated in ARB, not USD, so grantees should expect price fluctuations. Passing this proposal sets a precedent for other grant receivers this past year who also have had to absorb losses due to ARB price depreciation. This serves as a good lesson for future proposals to consider: what grants should be denominated in and taking possible delays into account.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in Snapshot voting.
We maintain our stance from the proposal discussion phase. While we deeply empathize with the challenges faced by these grantees, we cannot support a retrospective financial compensation mechanism that fundamentally contradicts the basic principles of token grant programs.
We understand the challenges caused by delayed payouts and the fluctuations of the ARB token. However, since the grants were denominated in ARB from the start, the risk of token price fluctuations was an inherent aspect of the program that grantees accepted upon participation.so we decided to vote “Against”
Consistently with this, I have voted against this proposal.
I really sympathise with both the proposer and the team affected, I really do, and I can understand the frustration. But the grant program has always been denominated in arb.
To give an example, in LTIPP, proposers created specific kpi on economic value based on arb at the time of their proposal (around 1.7$). They effectively received arb at a value that was below 0.8$ or less, and we are talking about 30, 40M arbs. This extreme example is to show that for non denominated arb grants there will always be this problem; it’s unfortunately more prominent in grants that are for smaller team, because it can really make the difference for the survivability of a project.
But again the dao can’t take the burden of how volatile the asset is; the dao can for sure take in consideration how there was a big problem with the service provider involved, and try to find ways to correct this behaviour in future.
It’s really quite unfortunate, I don’t think it would be fair to set this precedent.
I’m voting “For”, if for anything to signal support that this is an issue the DAO should be focusing on in the future. I’m hoping if anything this can kick-start discussion on how to fix this going forward, because even though this case was fairly egregious, this issue has become fairly common across all projects in the DAO.
Reasoning: Pretty much what I’ve mentioned in posts above. I really do agree with a lot of other delegates here that ARB price fluctuations should be expected, and had this been something like a 1 week delay or whatever I would have voted against this… but at the core of this issue is more-so an operational failure. One that resulted in payout delays up to 7 Months for one of the groups. Precedent can go both ways, and I think if we keep having things like this happen we risk growing a reputation.
1 Like
We are voting against this proposal because it sets a precedent of compensating projects for delays and market fluctuations, which are common risks in grants and funding rounds. While the delays were unfortunate, funds were eventually delivered, and additional compensation may not be fair to other grantees who managed despite challenges. Grant rounds should prioritize improving processes for the future rather than retroactive restitution.
We vote AGAINST this proposal.
We believe the price fluctuation is an inherent nature of the crypto tokens, and this shouldn’t be the reason for the retroactive restitution, otherwise codified in the original proposal, like the STEP program service provider case. We sincerely feel the pain from the affected developers, but they had ways to hedge this situation like others mentioned. For the delayed payouts, the DAO should address the issue separately, not in this manner. Signaling support on developers is important, but we don’t believe approving this proposal is an appropriate way to do so.
The following 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.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
While we understand the position that the winning teams found themselves in, the grants were supposed to be delivered in ARB, which they were. The price depreciation affected not only the grantees but probably also the grant program itself and the broader DAO initiatives. One such example was the ARDC, where members got paid less in dollar terms, even though the fee they quoted was denominated in USD.
We do not want to set a precedent where the price fluctuations are retroactively addressed by going to the DAO and asking for additional funds. It would also be crazy to expect grantees who received, say, 10,000 ARB to give back half of it if the price appreciated by 100% by the time they were to receive it.
It is also worth mentioning that the payments in question were just prizes, not compensation for some work delivered for the DAO. Those prizes were denominated in ARB and delivered in ARB.
If anything, the takeaway from this is that we should, as a DAO, do a better job at managing payments denominated in ARB and do a better job with logistics and communication involved with payment delivery.
3 Likes
Blockworks Advisory will be voting against this proposal.
It’s understandable that these folks are upset with their compensation; however, the standard has been set and we should not establish a new precedent unless it is absolutely necessary. If an amount is committed to in ARB then it should remain that way, in future iterations applicants and proposal drafters should make it explicitly clear that the denomination will be in USD.
It is important to say that this is not problem with what occurred. The other component to this were the late payments made to grantees. Moving forward, it may be ideal that there should be an expected late payment clause added to DAO grants or a restitution power given to some oversight committee of some sort.
1 Like
After much internal deliberation, we have voted against this proposal.
It wasn’t an easy decision and one that we didn’t take lightly. The balance between our desire to ensure fairness for those within the Arbitrum community and setting a bad precedent made this an even harder decision. In the end, we voted against setting a negative precedent where compensation is made based on a dollar value when an ARB amount was committed.
1 Like
I agree with Bob and believe the issue was framed incorrectly (also in the original proposal).
The core problem isn’t ARB’s price fluctuations but the DAO’s failure to ensure prompt operational execution. These were relatively small payments, and delays of months should not be acceptable.
We want builders join the Arbitrum ecosystem knowing that we appropriately respond to meritocracy. Let’s send a signal.
Voting FOR.
4 Likes
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting AGAISNT in this proposal and below is our rationale.
The proposal highlights the challenges caused by the use of highly volatile Tokens/funds for expenditures and project execution. The amount requested for compensation is not particularly large, and the issues have been thoroughly explained.
I vote for this proposal, as it also provides reflections on the use of such funds. I hope similar issues can be addressed and improvements implemented in the future.
1 Like
Hey @danielo, looking at this hackathon continuation proposal, we’re voting FOR with no on-chain mechanism.
We got some real talent there that could seriously help build out Arbitrum. The 2-phase funding is smart (validate first, then scale), plus RnDAO is matching 50%. Seems like a no-brainer to keep this momentum going, especially if we can connect these builders with existing Arb projects, and existing well funded ventures dedicated to specific industries.
1 Like