Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establish the 'Arbitrum Research & Development Collective'

Congrats on this proposal passing the snapshot vote! Glad to see the strong consensus emerge on the need for service providers helping to get things moving in the DAO.

While going through the votes, I did want to bring up an issue with ranked choice voting as it currently exists: there is no way to abstain!!!

In the ARDC vote, a large delegate with 8 million ARB abstained, presumably for conflict of interest reasons

But as very few others abstained, the option was eliminated and his vote went towards funding the collective at the highest amount!

The final result now shows 0 abstain votes

This isn’t a comment on this proposal; I just so happened to notice it for this vote and thought it worth mentioning.

6 Likes

Ranked-Choice Voting

@devansh This is a significant pitfall to highlight with ranked-choice voting. In any governance decision that includes an Abstain option, I caution against using ranked choice as it may have the unintended consequence of undermining it. To ensure a voter is truly abstaining without applying their voting power, they should not cast at all.

This topic was discussed at length in the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) community, culminating in a response from Nick Johnson and Alex Van de Sande. See: A primer on ranked-choice voting.

The conclusion internally in the ENS community seemed to be that:

  • Widespread voter understanding of Ranked-Choice (IRV) mechanics did not exist, and
  • unintended consequences should be considered when putting all votes forward.

There does not seem to be any change in the outcome here because this forked coalition proposal intends to remove the direct conflict of interest from voters who previously abstained. Still, considering the similarities in outcome to the coalition proposal, it’s worth highlighting.

When voting on the four verticals (security, risk, research, DAOadvocate), avoiding creating a similar situation will be necessary. A possible solution is to use Weighted Voting as this allows voters to spread voting power among different candidates of preference and, for those who wish to entirely abstain, the option to allocate 100% of voting power with that selection.

Compound Voting Decisions

Compound voting decisions ask the voter to make multiple decisions in one action. Although this can be efficient for governance and is not inherently wrong, it carries a higher risk of unintended outcomes.

This proposal falls into this category. It asks voters to decide two things:

  1. Should an ‘Arbitrum Research & Development Collective’ be established; and
  2. how much should be allocated?

I’m unsure if two separate proposals would be culturally accepted here, and if it’s worth the governance burden when spending ~3.5M p.a., but wanted to bring this up.

7 Likes

After consideration Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on this proposal:

Effective management of risk, security and research are important domains Arbitrum DAO needs to prioritise. We recognize the value proposition of the original Arbitrum Coalition proposal but had concerns on the centralization of power in the DAO, and lack of open, fair and meritocratic service provider tender process. We feel this proposal goes some way towards addressing these concerns and provides a level playing field which will allow the DAO to select those providers most suitable for the role. We recognize this proposal is complex, however we have faith both in the authors rigour and the direction this proposal is taking Arbitrum DAO. As such, we voted FOR.

We have prioritised the options for the total budget cap, listing our preferences as follows: 1.715, 1.3, 880k. We believe this will ensure we do not deter some high-quality service providers from participating, whilst still allowing the service provider selection process to be price-competitive. We believe this is the best route to provide impactful, fair and merit based outcomes for the DAO.

9 Likes

@coltron.eth @thedevanshmehta

Really sorry I did not address this on yesterday’s call @thedevanshmehta as I had to hop off ser (I saw your comment on the google meets).

In all honesty this was a factor (or rather, an in-built flaw) of ranked-choice voting I was not aware of. In fact, I think that for the Procurement Committee proposal I will opt for the Weighted Voting method as suggested by Coltron. I thought that Ranked-Choice would be good as it would give me insight on what would voters prefer from a priority pov re. funding.

Can you guys reach out to me on Telegram @immutablelawyer? I want to discuss what voting options you think would be best for different scenarios and potentially create a post on this!

5 Likes

Appreciate your guys’ support!

Thanks for the valuable feedback @Pepperoni_Jo3 !

3 Likes

A proposal to fund the ARDC initiative was posted in Tally | Arbitrum Proposal

Is there any documentation on how the streaming and clawback mechanisms work? How are they implemented in the multisig linked in the above proposal?

3 Likes

Hello sir!

We will be using the Zodiac Governance Module to cater for the forecited mechanisms [ref: Zodiac Governor Module for SubDAOs and Grants Programs - Tally Docs]

Will be implementing this to the MS tomorrow!

Shoutout to @Frisson for helping out with this particular facet :handshake:

2 Likes

Thank you for the reply.

The proposal text (as posted onchain) says it will use Hedgey as a streaming platform for funds.

For that to be the case you would need to create a Hedgey stream following the instructions in For Grant Issuers - Hedgey Community Docs
During this configuration it will allow you to setup the streaming, making it revokable by the DAO (with the grants admin address being the DAO).

If the funds get directly transferred to the Safe multisig (as it is in the current onchain proposal up for a vote), the streaming/vesting will not be respected regardless of Zodiac modules or not.

3 Likes

Thanks for this @fred !

We are planning on reposting the on-chain proposal with the forecited implementations + amendments to the text as there were some errors made even in the text.

So the tl;dr is:

The new on-chain proposal will have the clawback mechanism of the DAO re. the Multi-Sig funds embedded;

Post-SP Election, we will then use Hedgeye to pay elected service providers and put the DAO as the Grant Administrator (thus the DAO will be able to halt payments to SPs as well, aside from also having the ability to clawback MS funds)

Excuse the multiple edits, wanted to provide a quick reply but am currently in a meeting :sweat_smile:

6 Likes

I support the need for a collective like ARDC for the DAO and acknowledge its necessity in areas like risk management, security, and research.

Managing risks and doing research well is super important for Arbitrum DAO. I liked the original idea of the Arbitrum Coalition, but was a bit worried about too much power being in one place and not enough openness in choosing service providers. This new plan seems to fix some of those worries and makes things more fair for choosing the right people for the job, so I voted YES to support it.

3 Likes

After consideration Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Council (ARC) would like to vote FOR this proposal.

Our rationale remains consistent with the one we expressed during the Snapshot Vote. This is provided below.

Effective management of risk, security and research are important domains Arbitrum DAO needs to prioritise. We recognize the value proposition of the original Arbitrum Coalition proposal but had concerns on the centralization of power in the DAO, and lack of open, fair and meritocratic service provider tender process. We feel this proposal goes some way towards addressing these concerns and provides a level playing field which will allow the DAO to select those providers most suitable for the role. We recognize this proposal is complex, however we have faith both in the authors rigour and the direction this proposal is taking Arbitrum DAO and will be voting FOR.

We have prioritised the options for the total budget cap, listing our preferences as follows: 1.715, 1.3, 880k. We believe this will ensure we do not deter some high-quality service providers from participating, whilst still allowing the opportunity for service providers to competitively bid against each other. We believe this is the best route to provide impactful, fair and merit based outcomes for the DAO.

2 Likes

I think this is a well-designed proposal. The ARDC’s formation is a strategic move that meets the needs of the Arbitrum DAO. Comments:

  1. The ARDC’s mandate aligns well with the DAOs priorities. It sets out to optimize risk management parameters, and in addition invests in research, risk-management and security verticals that are essential to the continued development of Arbitrum.

  2. The establishment of a clear election process for ARDC members, along with the implementation of checks and balances, ensures transparency and accountability. It will be interesting to see how the DAOAdvocate role materializes, but I can certainly see how the concept of a trust-like “protector” in the context of DAOs adds checks and balances.

  3. The integration of clawback functions on the Multi-Sig and Service Provider Streams adds an additional layer of control for the DAO, ensuring that funds are used responsibly and in alignment with community goals.

  4. The proposed budget options offer flexibility (funds are returned if unused) and despite the cost the scope is large so it represents good value for money in this current market.

  5. This proposal also learns from and improves upon past initiatives like the Arbitrum Coalition proposal, demonstrating an ability to evolve and listen to community experience and feedback.

1 Like

Here is the reasoning behind why we voted FOR this proposal onchain, despite having hesitations around the Snapshot phase

All opinions come from @juanbug and me, the operators of the Uniswap DAO’s ARB delegation

2 Likes

Hello everyone,

Firstly, I’d like to take this opportunity for everyone’s collective participation, feedback & support in the process of getting this initiative up & running for the ArbitrumDAO - Whatever the result of the vote, I am very pleased to have conversed & spoken to a lot of delegates & contributors on the structuring of the proposal, the value proposition of the ARDC together with addressing & incorporating feedback & queries posed.

As an announcement, unfortunately BP from Gamma had to drop from the Multi-sig due to unforeseen circumstance. I’d like to thank BP for his prompt assistance with the Multi-Sig setup and wish him and his team all the best :handshake:

In BP’s stead, @JoJo will be added to the Multi-Sig as the fifth signer.

Thank you all!

Kind regards,
Joseph [Immutablelawyer]
Axis Advisory

1 Like

I’m excited about the potential positive impact this could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem. The ARDC’s mandate, which includes governance proposal reviews, code audits, risk assessments, and quantitative analysis, aligns well with the strategic priorities of the ArbitrumDAO. The proposed election process for key roles, such as the DAOAdvocate, Risk Management, Security, and Research members, seems well-structured and inclusive.

I believe that the ARDC proposal, with its well-defined structure, focus on community engagement, and commitment to transparency, has the potential to significantly contribute to the growth and success of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

1 Like

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 expressed our support for the proposal during temp-check and we’ll also be voting in its favour during the on-chain vote. We believe the establishment of the collective proposed will be beneficial to the DAO.

1 Like

The Savvy DeFi DAO’s Arbitrum Council has voted decisively FOR the ARDC proposal, and we’d like to share our collective perspective on this strategic move.

  • The ARDC’s careful examination of risk, security, and continuous research aligns precisely with our vision for the long-term development of the global ecosystem. The proposal not only addresses current needs but also maps out a straightforward route for sustained growth.
  • As DAO Members, we value the transparent election process, checks and balances, and the introduction of the innovative DAOAdvocate role. These components collectively construct a governance framework that guarantees accountability, reflecting our core principles.
  • As contributors, we recognize the complexity of proposal review and voting. The ARDC’s contextual knowledge empowers both voters and developers, fostering a more robust governance environment.

Special thanks to Immutable Lawyer for his outstanding work.

Savvy DeFi DAO’s Arbitrum Council

1 Like

ARDC Elections, Election Template & Guidance can be found hereunder: