It’s quite relieving to see someone finally raising their voice.
The reality surrounding the Arbitrum DAO is that the destiny of every vote rests in the hands of a mere half-dozen delegates. This is public and very obvious for almost anyone to reference.
Individuals like @olimpio and @ChainLinkGod, who carry the delegate title, seem to contribute minimally, if at all, to the progress of ongoing deliberations.
A puzzling stance is also taken by Treasure DAO, proclaiming they’ll exclusively cast votes aligned with their own interests. But doesn’t this stance contradict the very essence of being the largest delegate? It’s a point warranting heightened attention. Treasure DAO by itself can decide the outcome of almost all votes - what happens when Treasure want incentives? Should only delegates involved in the gaming ecosystem vote, taking the same position as Treasure?
Moreover, while acknowledging the nascent endeavours of these grant framework collectives, it’s imperative to underscore their vested interest in these matters. The prospect of claiming up to 20% of a grant framework as “cost” is undeniably a lucrative proposition. Naturally, these individuals would expend considerable effort to ensure that ARB grants are funneled through their frameworks. While I do not imply that these people would bottleneck the DAO for their own gain, one must question all scenarios and conflicts of interest that come into play.
Perhaps people think that the DAO has the luxury of waiting, but I can assure you that other ecosystems are making the most of this opportunity. Arbitrum DAO is sending a very loud signal to all builders and chains.