That’s a very good reason, thank you for the clarification. I have updated my vote to “Yes to both” as a result.
1 Like
gm, voted YES TO BOTH for the reasons outlined above: promises to builders must be prioritized.
As Daniel clarified, the remaining tokens must be converted into USDC and the most frictionless way to do it is to bring it to the TMC.
Thanks
1 Like
I support this proposal to top-up the HCP and transfer the remaining funds to the TMC on snapshot.
This is a flexible, one time solution to address the current shortfall and ensure developers’ projects continue without disruption.
We will resolve the immediate issue, but also will serve as an important learning moment for improving risk management practices in the future.
1 Like
Voting YES FOR BOTH to make it whole. Hopefully, a better funding system can be designed for future programs.
1 Like
Hey, I’m voting for option B because it gives the Hackathon Continuation Program the $89,980 it needs to keep running smoothly. Plus, it sends the extra funds to the Treasury Management Committee to build a stablecoin pool for future projects. It’s a solid way to support Arbitrum and manage our money better!
1 Like
I voted “Yes for both”. It is a reasonable approach to the issue at hand, and sending the stables to the TMC to put it for use is the best chaoice in this scenario, IMO.
1 Like
voting Yes to both on the current offchain vote because I like rubber stamping things that didn’t actually need to happen and contribute to achieving an imaginary quorum of 130,752,756.914717982009274266 ARB as of the ETH block 22375793 at the timestamp of the start of this offchain vote.
1 Like
I’m voting only to top-up the HCP, I’m against spending the remaining funds elsewhere.
For Ospina’s situation, I fully support the allocation. I’ve been in that exact position myself multiple times - receiving a grant denominated in tokens, watching the token price depreciate before disbursement, and then being unable to deliver what was promised to other stakeholders. It’s good practice to ask for a buffer amount, for future grants. Supporting Daniel here helps him fulfill the promises and expectations from the original approved proposal, and hopefully we can add buffer amounts to future proposals (ALPHA LEAK: I’m doing that for q/acc for sure.)
However,
I want to strongly oppose the idea that “unspent funds can be redirected elsewhere” rather than returning them to the DAO treasury.
This sets a dangerous precedent. When funds aren’t used for their approved purpose, the default should be returning them to the treasury. We can’t normalize this!
This approach of “we have leftover money, let’s find ways to spend it” is honestly just classic government sh*t that we shouldn’t fall into the trap of. If we have money unspent, sending it back to the DAO needs be the norm that we try to proliferate.
Otherwise, we’re no better than governments that pass a tax to fund a bridge or something, and then when the bridge is built, the tax just stays and they use it for other things because “there’s more things we can do with this money” and “oh, we don’t have to pass another proposal.” That’s such bullsh*t. We need to strive to be better than governments.
2 Likes
Voting Yes to Only top-up the HCP.
I support this proposal as an exception and here’s why:
1 Like
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting YES, to both.
Below the rationale:
1 Like
This proposal addresses an immediate issue, but highlights the need to better design how we manage risks from the outset.
Before allocating additional funds, it would be important to have a clear evaluation of what has been achieved so far in the Hackathon Continuation Program. A public summary with basic metrics would help justify this exception.
It is also worth discussing how to incorporate operational buffers into future proposals. An additional 10 to 15 percent in stablecoins, for example, included from the start as a contingency measure, could help absorb deviations caused by market fluctuations without requiring new DAO votes. This amount would only be activated in specific situations, such as a significant drop in the value of ARB, and if unused, should be returned to the treasury.
In addition, any proposal involving token management should include a basic sensitivity analysis, outlining how a negative price shift, such as a 20 percent drop in ARB, could affect execution. This would help anticipate risks and provide voters with the necessary context to make more informed decisions.
we voting Yes to both, as we mentioned:
but we’d love to see a comprehensive framework that enables us to deploy unspent funds for greater benefit in other areas.
1 Like
I’m voting “yes to both” as I believe this is the most efficient way to address the immediate funding needs and prevent these projects from leaving the ecosystem. I think that the delay happened for valid reasons and don’t see a strong case to vote against this solution. I also agree with other delegates on the need to find a better long-term approach for situations like this, and I’m happy to see that alternative solutions are already being discussed. I will participate in those conversations, but for now, I support this short-term solution to ensure continuity.
1 Like
As AranaDigital, we are voting FOR the top-up for the Hackathon Continuation Program. We support using a portion of the Domain Allocator funds left over from Season 1 to top up the Hackathon Continuation Program. However, we argue that this one-time instance should not become the norm and that funds should be returned to the DAO without disruption in the future. It is important for the Arbitrum DAO to maintain trust with developers, so we are in favor of using DAO funds as reimbursement this time; however, such a situation should have been avoided in the first place. An important question is who will cover any future shortfalls like this if there is no leftover funding.
We also support sending the remaining funds from Domain Allocator Season 1 to the Treasury Management Committee to increase its stablecoin pool, ensuring that the DAO always has liquid, low-risk, yield-generating capital to cover dollar-denominated expenses and service-provider contract shortfalls. This approach prevents the need to sell ARB for immediate actions like this case, as it provides deep USD liquidity for DAO operations.
1 Like
Voting Yes to both.
Realistically, the tokens are fungible so there isn’t really a reason to add an extra step. Both just for simplicity but also technically one less chance for an operational error. Either option is effectively the same.
I will echo others (as well as some comments I’ve made when past issues have come up relating to fluctuating price) - changes in ARB price continue to be a sticky/pain point in terms of operation within the DAO and should be addressed.
2 Likes
Initially, I thought I was fully supportive of everything. The continuation of the Hackathlon is definitely something I want to see happen. As I’ve mentioned in previous rationale statements, completing each project is of utmost importance in my view, as it contributes significantly to the long-term sustainability of the DAO.
The transfer to the TMC wasn’t something I was originally against. However, since the TMC will be completed as well, I don’t fully understand why the funds need to be moved there now, only to be transferred again once the TMC concludes. Of course, if any amount remains in the TMC, it will be transferred regardless.
In the end, I remain skeptical about the need to transfer funds to the TMC at this point, and for this specific part of the proposal, I will vote Only top-up the HCP
1 Like
We voted “Yes to both” for this proposal. Our feeling is that this works as effectively as a one-time solution to an unfortunate situation and we would like to see the HCP to be fully executed as originally intended by the DAO.
Also, thanks to @danielo / RnDAO for leading the effort on this:
We’re curious to better understand how this system works and would be great to get more details here. If indeed there is now a system in place that works, then we should consider potentially formalizing it for future investment programs.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the top-up, as well as for moving the extra funds to the TMC.
Per our previous comment, we support the proposed solution to the HCP’s shortfall. It’s a relatively easy way to address the problem without creating new ones for the DAO.
We’re not opposed to routing the remaining funds from Questbook’s S1 to the TMC, as the amount is relatively small and it would be easier to mobilize through the TMC than it would be if they were sent back to the treasury.
1 Like
The PBC Governance team is voting FOR both topping up the HCP and sending the extra funds to the TMC, as it’s a effective one-time fix for the funding shortfall.
1 Like