Abstract - This proposal seeks to reverse the recent approval of the 225M ARB allocation for the Gaming Catalyst Program, focusing on reviewing operational expenditures, implementing performance-based milestones, and establishing a transparent hiring process.
Motivation - The Arbitrum community should implement stricter financial oversight to ensure that salaries and expenditures are in line with industry standards, promoting efficiency and transparency.
Rationale - Aligning operational costs with industry standards and ensuring performance-based incentives will support the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Specifications - The proposal suggests a detailed review of the GCP budget, focusing on salaries, performance milestones, and hiring guidelines to ensure transparency and efficiency. Additionally, the hiring process and committee should be set up before the GCP is reapproved.
Steps to Implement -
Salary Review - Conduct a comprehensive review of salaries to align with industry standards.
Performance Milestones - Implement stricter, performance-based milestones for salaries and bonuses.
Hiring Process - Establish transparent hiring guidelines and processes.
Approval - Present the revised operational framework for community approval.
Implementation - Enforce the new guidelines and monitor compliance.
Timeline -
1-2 months to re-review the GCP and the OPEX / Salaries budget, and set up the hiring process and hiring committee.
Overall Cost - To be determined based on the revised budget allocation.
This proposal aims to ensure that operational expenditures are justified and transparent, supporting the long-term health of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
your proposal suggest a “generic” re-review of the proposal. As it is now, basically your proposal is about stopping something that got voted, then studying it for 1-2 months, do changes, if any are needed, and then make it go live. How is this a viable plan and discussion, that doesn’t really have any specific outcome (literally, might mean having the same that we have now), without any specific? And how can this 1-2 month review be better and have better outcome than the 6+ months in which everything was discussed in working groups and in the forum?
how is it possible to hire people, that, likely, have already either IRL jobs or capabilities to get a job, and tell them “ehy, wait for a dao, that likely doesn’t have specific experience in hiring and evaluating people, to evaluate your role and your compensation”?
I am failing to understand how, if the fund invests now on a projec that releases in 3 years, what milestone would we have and what we would evaluate, but maybe i am falling short in getting the big picture. I can see milestone on smaller grants and infra, but I can tell by experience that milestone on grants can be evaluated in very different ways and a lot of times results are not apparent and trivial and needs a proper context. And I also think is an important part but not the most important part of the fund.
To clarify: not trying to be adversarial with the above. But since there are a lot of questions on GCP, especially on operational details, I would in general expect well defined statements on how to move forward and what to change if any, and not simple “let’s do oversight let’s do veto let’s do milestones”. Something more concrete and detailed.
Note: i contributed in a very very tiny part, during these months, for generic advices.
This proposal underestimates the efforts that have already been made to ensure transparency and efficiency in the program’s setup. The sudden reconsideration of the GCP funding right after its approval sends a message of instability and unpredictability to all current and future contributors. Such actions could undermine trust in the decision-making processes of our community, discouraging future participation. We should focus our combined energy on ensuring its successful implementation. Reversing such decisions without substantial cause could damage our community’s reputation for reliability, causing serious harm to our ability to procure talent in the future.
Let me be the devil’s advocate here (i’m doing this too much lately).
In a dao, anybody can raise an amendment proposal. Is their right. And I think is fine: if something doesn’t work, you open a discussion and vote for a possible change, shutdown or whatever.
Just, imho needs to be on the merit and specificity.
We lack specificity here, is just a generic “let’s revise”. For the merit, well, it didn’t even start so there isn’t too much to discuss on that side i guess.
I’ve personally been a critic of GCP and think that there are several optimisations that can be made (most even after this proposal has now passed).
However, if we are to submit a DAO-Administered revision period/amendment proposal, it needs to be a detailed one and not shrouded in genericity such as this.
This proposals lacks a complete lack of detail re. key details that should be amended. Also, the salary review part has (to my knowledge) already been catered for by Delphi from the ARDC.
Again, I am all for optimising GCP, Improving it etc. However, if we are serious about this, then the detail has to start from the proposal stage. This proposal, in my personal opinion, lacks all the necessary detail re. its execution for me to be able to support it.
Also, this proposal presupposes that the review would be agreeable by all and thus, would render it automatically implementable (which, some may disagree with its findings). Hence, it’s a bit short-sighted in relation to how this review would be executed.