I acknowledge the importance of the industry continuing to have a voice in the legal space, however I have concerns about the DAO directly funding legal cases against governmental entities. For this reason, I will be voting “Abstain”.
Editing to save space: I will be maintaining my “Abstain” vote on Tally for the reasons noted above.
I will be voting in favour (FOR) this proposal choosing the 1M option.
Open-source is a subject I hold dear and it makes sense for Arbitrum to sometimes fund initiatives for not only its own ecosystem but the industry as a whole.
As @maxlomu mentioned, 1M ARB should be enough funding for them to succeed.
I voted for this proposal with the 1M ARB each option. As contributors to open-source software, we rely on the policy, litigation & advocacy efforts of DEF and Coin Center to create a stable environment in which to work.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Snapshot.
First of all, thank you @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
It’s undeniable that this is an extremely important cause, and it makes sense for the Arbitrum DAO to support it. However, before being comfortable with voting on a funding amount on Snapshot, we think that more specifics have to be added to the proposal:
In its current form, the usage of funds is too ambiguous and there’s no way to quantify what benefits could arise from larger allocations. We would prefer to see an estimated breakdown of how different-sized allocations would be leveraged by both DEF and Coin Center. Moreover, litigation proceedings concerning certain crypto-specific matters in the US have been mentioned a few times. Could the two entities provide expected expense breakdowns connected to these?
The proposal doesn’t give any details on how ARB would be liquidated, the funding structure (i.e., are funds transferred at once or vested over time), and how the two recipients would continue updating the DAO on their developments and the usage of funds (especially given that it seems as though Axis Advisory cannot be actively involved in the process going forward without a capital allocation).
The proposal needs to include a risk section, going over any potential threats that may arise against any Arbitrum-related entity from funding such a cause.
How much runway do the two entities have, and do they rely on donations to stay operational (how easy has it historically been to get funding)? If both entities are struggling to stay afloat, will the DAO be relied upon to enable operations to continue in the future?
Apologies if some of the aforementioned details have already been answered during calls. Nevertheless, we feel that it’s important to have these specifics added to the proposal itself to create accountability, inform voters of any possible risks, and set good precedents for similar requests that may arise in the future.
I have decided to vote FOR the “ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy” proposal on Snapshot.
Rationale:
As a passionate advocate of cypherpunk history, I recognize the pivotal importance of this proposal in safeguarding the rights of software developers and ensuring their right to privacy, particularly within the realms of open-source and decentralized software. These principles are foundational to the continued innovation and freedom in the tech community, and they resonate deeply with the ethos of the cypherpunk movement.
Comments:
I will cast my vote off-chain for the option to fund each organization with 500,000 ARB. This funding level represents a balanced approach, providing substantial support while ensuring prudent resource management. It is crucial that we monitor the effectiveness of this initial investment to determine if further support is needed based on tangible outcomes and impacts. This scalable funding strategy allows us to review and adjust our support, ensuring it continues to align with our objectives and delivers real results.
I also have some questions:
What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure we receive regular updates and maintain accountability regarding the use of funds? It’s crucial that there be a clear and structured communication strategy to keep the DAO informed. How do they plan to engage with us, and what format will these updates take? I understand it’s nothing clear at the moment but, I would say it’s important.
Is there a strategic plan to enhance the visibility and impact of these organizations’ efforts, both within and beyond the crypto community? Perhaps the DAO could support these efforts in some way. It’s important to understand whether the expectation is for these organizations to work primarily behind the scenes, or if there are plans to actively promote their initiatives, which would further the cause of defending software developers’ rights and privacy.
The below response 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’ll be supporting the proposal during temp check and we’re voting to fund both organizations with 1,000,000 ARB each. We believe the amount is enough to materially support their cause and send a strong signal of support from Arbitrum DAO.
We value the work that DeFi Education Fund and Coin Center are doing and we strongly believe it’s a net positive for the web3 ecosystem as a whole. Although we understand that a lot of delegates want the DAO to ensure that the funds are used specifically for the defense of Alexey and Roman, we think that we should trust the organizations to manage the funds as they see fit.
In our opinion, the most important thing we need to work on as a DAO is to ensure that the ARB we donate is converted to fiat in a sensible way to avoid a noticeable negative price impact on the ecosystem. The assistance of the Foundation could be helpful in that regard.
Savvy DAO has voted “100% for Fund with 500,000 ARB each” for the “Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom” proposal.
REASONING:
Focused and Pragmatic Support: Allocating 500,000 ARB each to DEF and Coin Center strikes a balance between providing meaningful support and ensuring prudent management of the DAO’s resources. This amount is substantial enough to make a significant impact on their ongoing legal and advocacy efforts without overcommitting funds, considering the broader range of initiatives that ArbitrumDAO might need to support simultaneously.
Strengthening Essential Advocacy: Both DEF and Coin Center play crucial roles in defending and promoting the rights of software developers and the broader open-source community. By funding these organizations, ArbitrumDAO contributes to vital policy, litigation, and advocacy work that protects the ecosystem against overreach and harmful legislation, thereby safeguarding the foundational principles of open and decentralized software development.
Setting a Sustainable Precedent: The choice to fund with a conservative yet impactful amount reflects a sustainable approach to DAO funding strategies. It allows for flexibility and responsiveness to future needs and sets a precedent for supporting important causes without compromising financial stability. This approach encourages ongoing support and participation in advocacy without risking the DAO’s capacity to address other urgent needs within the ecosystem.
This funding decision aligns with the broader mission of supporting innovation and protecting the decentralized nature of blockchain development, which is central to Arbitrum and the wider blockchain community’s ethos.
Adding Feedback here: Savvy DAO votes FOR the proposal “ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights”
Key Reasons:
The initiative aligns with our commitment to protect open-source contributions and promote innovation in the digital asset space.
The proposal’s focus on policy advocacy and litigation is crucial for ensuring regulatory clarity and supporting decentralized technologies globally.
With strong community backing, this initiative enhances our ecosystem by safeguarding developers’ ability to innovate without legal obstacles.
Savvy DAO supports this proposal for its strategic alignment with our values, defending digital liberties, and ensuring innovation in decentralized technologies
The Princeton Blockchain Club is in favor of donating to Coin Center and the DEF.
Just as in the original Crypto Wars, we must once again take an active stand against government overreach. Coin Center and the DEF have been actively defending the industry through education and legal action, and we believe the Arbitrum DAO should send a strong message of support for their work.
Although we’d even be in favor of voting for the 1.5m ARB option, 500k and 1m are currently leading and quite close to each other. Therefore, we’re voting FOR the 1m ARB option.
DAOplomats voted in favor of funding with 500k ARB each.
We know funding an initiative such as this is net positive and seeing all the work already done, we are in support.
Yes, there have been questions about quantifying the funding but we see this as more of a public good than an outright proposal requesting funds to pursue an initiative. That said, we decided to lean towards supporting Coin Center and DEF with 500k each. It’s not a lot for this cause, might not go a long way but shows our support.
In the future, if more funding is needed, we would appreciate if CC and DEF come themselves rather than through Immutablelawyer.
It’s not just the 800 pound reserve currency gorilla nor the 600 pound regulatory chimp or 400 pound CBDC monkey, its a global grab … err … exertion of control via
FATF basically (to justify continued funding) keeps on ratcheting up the red tape … unlike a traditional subordinate agency, there is no balance with say … financial inclusion (how does someone in war-torn country get official ID? )
some govts have abused the guidelines as excuse to crack down on rights activists instead of corrupt officials hiding kickbacks
Financial Stability Board tends to take the stance of TradFi so they like lower costs of digital assets but detest competition in their cozy corner
Basel Committee and anyone in charge of credit creation have basically pointed out that crypto-assets (toss all into the same sin-bin) have the highest risk and deserve a multiplier that you normally associate with hedge funds or pariah states
Because of the rarified G2G membership requirements (do you see FTX being offered a Davos spot any more?) any policy counterpoint is basically ignored. I’ve hearsay of senior banking executes being “surplus to requirements” for even suggesting a closer look at crypto. In some countries with rule of law, you get a chance to air the oppression in public court but basically the whole state machinery is stacked unless you are small enough not to care (eg Marshall Islands) but that comes with its own risk of a Panama style regime change.
My stance remains firm; I continue to support research and advancements in respecting open-source rights. Currently, it is an uncertain area, and the future will undoubtedly be challenging in terms of defending these technologies.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Tally.
As mentioned in our earlier comment, we think that this is an extremely important cause, but most of the points we have brought up have not been addressed. Specifically, it’s still unclear how the two recipients will continue updating the DAO on their developments and the usage of funds. However, we don’t think this warrants voting against this proposal.
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 are voting FOR the proposal.
During the temp check, we voted in favor of the proposal and opted to allocate 1,000,000 ARB to each of the organizations. However, the option to fund each organization with 500,000 ARB was more popular, and the proposal went for an on-chain vote with that amount.
Given that we were prepared to support each organization with a larger amount, we obviously favor supporting them with a smaller one.
We maintained our Snapshot vote to fund 500k ARB each as we are generally supportive of the initiative and consider it important for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute to the cause.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting FOR the donation to Coin Center and the DEF on Tally.
We haven’t changed our stance since the Snapshot. We would’ve preferred to send a larger amount, but since that didn’t get through on Snapshot, we definitely support the donation of 500k ARB to each of them.