After discussing the proposal and the situation with various stakeholders, Gauntlet agrees that the delay in funding the ThankARB program is, under normal circumstances, unacceptable for a grant program. That said, it’s clear that the grant was denominated in ARB and not a USDC value of ARB. As such, there is no cause for restitution from the DAO. Further, this was not a DAO-run program but rather an initiative funded by the DAO that was operated by the Thrive team. We would prefer to see the Thrive team take responsibility for these disagreements in the future rather than having each delegate litigate such small cases.
Lastly, it would set an incorrect precedent that ARB-denominated grants are valued at ARB’s USDC conversion rate at grant distribution. Programs convert ARB to stablecoins when their liabilities are denominated in stablecoins; in this case, the rewards were clearly denominated in ARB.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We align with the comments made by other delegates. While we empathize with the builders affected by this situation, we understand that the grants were awarded in ARB. We do not find it feasible for the DAO to bear the burden of token volatility in such agreements.
It’s concerning that in some cases, winners have waited up to seven months to receive their funds. Beyond any delays caused by the KYC process (which we understand from personal experience can sometimes be challenging), we do not believe this is a valid justification for such significant delays. Based on the available forum information, we observed that many of these issues could have been avoided with a more proactive approach.
For these reasons, we do not find the DAO responsible in a way that justifies any disbursement of funds. Once again, we regret the situation experienced by the grantees and hope that, in the future, any individual/entity managing grant programs will take this poor precedent as a learning opportunity.
DAOplomats voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
There were some reasons we were against this proposal which several delegates already mentioned. Our major reason, however, is process integrity. We don’t want to open that can of worms where approving retrospective payments might signal to participants that initial funding decisions can be revisited.
Hello @Paloma_Etienne you need to have ARB tokens in your wallet, AND to delegate them to yourself (or have someone else that has ARB tokens in their wallet to delegate them to your wallet) and you have to do that before the proposal vote starts.
Since you asked after the proposal vote had started, there was nothing you could do, to get voting power to be able to vote on this proposal.
To delegate voting power to yourself, you can go to https://arbitrum.karmahq.xyz/ connect your wallet, then go back to the list, search for your wallet address, and click on the blue [Delegate] button, to delegate your ARB tokens to yourself, so you can vote on the following proposals.
