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.
Firstly, we want to thank @Kubilay_MatrixedLink for taking the time to draft and submit the proposal. There hasn’t been a similar proposal to onboard a validator in the past so we appreciate them opening the way for others, and most importantly, for drawing attention to and hopefully starting a discussion around the lack of process for onboarding validators on Arbitrum.
After careful consideration and discussion, we are voting AGAINST this proposal in the temperature check. However, we would like to stress out that this is not a vote against Matrixed.Link or adding new validators in general, simply we feel we are not ready to vote for it yet.
Our reasoning is as follows:
-
there has been little discussion of this proposal to this day. The proposal had garnered 0 comments since its submission on July 10th, only to receive replies once it was submitted on Snapshot (because people voting went to the forums for context). While we understand that getting attention is difficult, we would advise the proposer to reach out directly to delegates or at least show up on a monthly community call to introduce themselves to ArbitrumDAO and facilitate feedback on their proposal.
-
we don’t know much about Matrixed.Link and we couldn’t find all the information we were looking for at their website. There were some dead links (like terms & and policy, which is important information in the context of the proposal), we couldn’t find more detailed information about the company or the team (the LinkedIn links on the website don’t work), the blog part of the website is empty. This raises questions about credibility - we’re not saying the company isn’t credible, we’re just lacking information at this point. This can be easily fixed through a discussion later on.
-
as a DAO we lack the processes to onboard new validators (or remove existing ones). The current set of validators was set up before the DAO was formed, and we haven’t discussed how we are going to manage the set of validators, which includes a discussion of incentivizing validators. We think it’s high time to have that discussion, and it’s good that this proposal brings it up.
-
managing the validator list is a security issue and shouldn’t be rushed or taken lightly. This is not an issue where the DAO should prioritize speed and agility over full understanding and thoughtful decision making.
In summary, we believe that more discussion is needed before we can support this proposal. However, we are already committed to participating in this discussion and can help facilitate it in the coming weeks.