SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread

SEED LATAM - Delegate Communication Thread

Following the standards of SEEDLatam and L2 en Español in governance, this is our thread with all our relevant decisions and participation in ArbitrumDAO’s governance.


SEEDLatam supports communities and leaders in Latam. We support and encourage the participation of different delegates from Latin America in DAOs with high impact, working together with different communities in the region. Meanwhile L2 en Español, is a community dedicated to to the study of Ethereum’s scaling solutions, collaborating with SEEDLatam to bring this delegation forward, and contribute with our experience and knowledge about Arbitrum.

About myself @cattin, I’m a Law student born and raised in Lima, Perú. Currently, I’m working as bizdev/growth for Kali(DAO deployer + legal wrappers) and Nation3 (onchain jurisdiction), but I also contribute to LexDAO and Layer 2 en Español. Beyond this, I’ve been an enthusiast of Arbitrum since day one and I have always done by best to spread information about it in our L2 en Español community.

Read our complete presentation in the Delegate Statement Template thread here.
There’s a Spanish version that you can read here.

Our social media accounts:


L2 en Español:



Our procedure

With the help of numerous collaborators and members of SEEDLatam and L2 en Español, every decision made on behalf of our communities regarding governance is discussed, agreed upon, and communicated to all those interested in participating through our discussion channels on Discord.

No decision will be made unilaterally

SEED Latam & L2 en Español>Gobernanza>ArbitrumDAO

Participation in forum discussion threads and daily activities represent the personal opinions of the delegate and collaborators in their efforts to stay up to date with their roles and commitment to governance; the use of “we” will be applied when representing decisions or communications that arise from the community, such as voting decisions and proposal submissions, all through this profile.

This is a repost of our Delegate Communication Thread because the original was taken down without any explication a couple of weeks ago

Special thanks to PEPO, Cryptochica, our contributors @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth, @Noa, @Manugotsu_SEEDLatam, @MCamere, @SEED_Latam_Joxes, @Phenrril and all of our community :smiley:



Hey everyone,

@cattin here, representing SEEDLatam and L2 en Español, after discussing this AIP with our community during our first governance call carried out in our Discord, we decided to vote AGAINST AIP-1, for the reasons stated below.


As a self-sustaining organization that encompasses other communities, each with different interests, we understand how difficult it is to have clear communication in these scenarios where there is a lot to do (airdrop, forming the DAO, maintaining decentralization, etc.), nobody said that running and forming a DAO was an easy task.

Therefore, we want to thank @stonecoldpat for his post “Clarity around the ratification of AIP-1” which brought more clarity to what is happening in ArbitrumDAO to our community.

However, this does not remove the great dissatisfaction of the community that was expressed during our governance call regarding this situation. Additionally, we believe that AIP-1 encompasses several proposals together which should be voted on and dealt with separately, as it has already been recognized in the latest statement made by Arbitrum on twitter.

While we understand that this is not now a “proposal” but rather a “ratification” of the initial DAO configuration, we will express the will of the Latam community on each point.

On Special Grants

We believe that this point is very vaguely explained, although it is clarified that the Special Grants process and criteria will be published in the future, we do not believe that voting for this point now is correct.

Establishing the scope of these Special Grants and the processes we believe is crucial, as these are funds intended for organizations/institutions or individuals who have somehow helped or supported the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe that transparency in the processes and that those funds truly have an impact that benefits the Arbitrum ecosystem is really important.

On Directors

We understand that at this point there is a legal and regulatory margin that is beyond our reach and it is necessary for Arbitrum Foundation to assign its board.

However, we would like to have more information regarding the names mentioned before proceeding with this proposal or at least for Offchain Labs/Arbitrum explain why these directors where elected, with some background about them. Also, these directors could introduce themselves in the forum as such, explaining what’s their background, what relationship they have t0 Arbitrum/Offchain Labs, etc. It is important to maintain trust among all parties that make up Arbitrum DAO, the DAO as such has the right to know who is behind this Foundation and why they were appointed.

On the Security Council

On this point, there’s nothing we would really change, just congratulations to Patricio Worthalter for being part of the Council, since he’s pretty close to our community and an important voice from our region. Our community members are big fans of POAP, and we are proud that this attestation tool has emerged from this side of the world!

On the Data Availability Committee (Arbitrum Nova chain only)

Regarding the Data Availability Committee, we would like to have more clarity on the selection criteria of each member and their relationship with Offchain Labs.

We also believe that it is necessary to vote on a removal or appointment process, just in case there’s a scenario where one member should be replaced, such as what happened last year with FTX.

On The Arbitrum Foundation Administrative Budget Wallet

This is what has generated the most debate and dissatisfaction, on the one hand, it is not an exorbitant amount for a DAO Foundation since they have to pay administrative costs and grant funding as mentioned earlier. On this point, our community is completely in favor of the Foundation being funded, and we don’t necessarily have any issues with the amount requested. The problem here, as mentioned earlier, is communication.

We consider that it’s too risky to have 7.5% of the total supply on a multisig, we know this is unlikely to happen, but after what happened with Ronin we don’t think we should run the risk. This allocation should be distributed gradually, and discussed in a separate proposal, with proper guidelines on how these funds are going to be used and what roles would the directors have in all of this. The main issue we had, as a community, is the way that arbitrum carried this out, doing first and asking for permission later. Even if it was just a “ratification”, then at least they should’ve been transparent since day 1 about the Foundation’s wallet being funded at the time of the distribution and regarding funds going to a market maker, which again, we don’t see an issue with this, but we simply don’t understand why couldn’t this be communicated openly in a transparent way.

So how should we proceed?

To fix this error and due to everything that has happened during this temperature check, we believe that if the proposal is rejected, Arbitrum should take another approach, go point by point, and have it voted on by Arbitrum DAO.


Our community is convinced that we are in time to remedy the first misstep that Arbitrum has taken. On the other hand, we are also pleased with the general reactions, we believe that this type of situation is always good for progressing as an ecosystem, we are in very early stages and it’s better to make these mistakes now than later.

Finally, we want to thank our community, more than 60 members showed up to our governance call, and also thank you to our contributors and delegates @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth @Manugotsu_SEEDLatam @SEED_Latam_Joxes @Phenrril @Noa and @ArbiGod.eth for participating and helping us form this statement. Any member of this DAO who wants to participate in our governance calls and open to discuss Arbitrum-related topics is welcome.

Also, if you want to watch our first governance call click here.



About: AIP-1.05 - Return 700M $ARB to the DAO Treasury

Our vote is against.

To learn about the voting procedure of SEEDLatam and L2 en Español, you can read it here.


We believe this proposal is unnecessary and seems more like a power play that could cause legal and reputational harm to the Arbitrum Foundation and, consequently, the DAO. It is worth clarifying that we voted against AIP-1 for the reasons we clarified in this forum. We consider it is time to move forward and not fall into situations that hinder growth since AI-1.1 and 1.2 address the main issues of AIP-1.


Our main reasons to vote agains this proposal are the following:

  • The Foundation has unilaterally been allocated $750M tokens from the DAO that was not approved by the governance token holders.

    This is clarified in the Transparency report: Initial foundation setup and detailed in the AIP-1.1 in the Smart Contract Lockup and Operating Budget section.

  • Return 700M $ARB from the Foundation to the DAO as a symbolic gesture that the governance token holders hold ultimate power and authority over the resources that were granted to the DAO

    As we mentioned earlier, this is an unnecessary step and delays the launch of the Arbitrum Foundation. We believe that funding the Foundation is necessary for the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

  • Buyback $ARB via Wintermute with whatever fiat is left from the $10M OTC sale

    This action entails unnecessary expenses, and we do not know the legal and regulatory scope of such actions. We must be cautious as the ecosystem is under the scrutiny of regulators.

  • Disclose terms of the market making deal with Wintermute

    We understand that there is a signed legal agreement; this could create unnecessary conflict between the parties. In addition, it would undermine the seriousness and reputation of the Arbitrum Foundation, which could affect future agreements with other entities/institutions or individuals.


Our community previously expressed its anger by voting against AIP-1. Now they consider that the Foundation has set things right with AIP-1.1, AIP-1.2, and the Transparency report: Initial foundation setup. This proposal does not contribute to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem, which is one of our pillars expressed in the Delegate Statement, but rather delays it.

About the other Proposals



Hello everyone,

On Thursday 13 we had our 2nd governance call at SEEDLatam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed with our community the ongoing proposals:

Participants: 60 attendees

Duration: 1h

Our voting procedure

True to our ethos, we went through each proposal and explained them in detail to our community. Then the debate was opened for community members to express their opinions on each proposal. Finally, each proposal was voted on individually by community members present in our discord.

Direct collaborators @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth @Manugotsu_SEEDLatam @SEED_Latam_Joxes @Phenrril @MCamere and @Noa also expressed their opinions. We want to thank the regional delegates, @ArbiGod.eth, who joined the debate and contributed their opinions.

As always, any member of this DAO who wants to participate in our governance calls and is open to discussing Arbitrum-related issues is more than welcome.

About: AIP-1.1 - Lockup, Budget, Transparency

Our vote is in favor.


AIP-1.1 addresses and resolves most of the requests we made previously. However, despite our favorable vote, we want to express the opinion of our community on each point.

About Smart Contract Lockup

We believe it is a wise decision to lock funds in a smart contract. It also restores DAO control over funds by allowing adjustments to future funding and/or modifying the unlock schedule.

About Operating Budget

The community was satisfied with the presentation and description of the operating budget. However, they expressed a desire for future budgets to be more detailed in terms of expenses and aligned with the goals of the Arbitrum Foundation and ArbitrumDAO.

About Ecosystem Growth Initiatives

In this point, we had requested more details in the previous proposal. We believe the focus and objectives for growth initiatives are better clarified. Although the application and approval process still needs detailing, SEEDLatam and L2 en Español are available to collaborate in the development of these processes, considering the experience of some of our members in such initiatives.

Transparency Reports

Our community was more than satisfied with this transparency report, which provides a description of The Arbitrum Foundation directors and details the initial costs of establishing The Arbitrum Foundation and ArbitrumDAO. However, the relationship with OffChain Labs and the selection criteria for the Nova Network Data Availability Committee remains a bit obscure.


Although some points still need clarification, AIP-1.1 mostly resolves all previously expressed doubts, and this is not an impediment to voting in favor. Our community believes it is time for Arbitrum to take the next step, and for them, the official launch of the Foundation is essential.

About the other Proposals



About: AIP-1.2 - Foundation and DAO Governance

Our vote is in favor .

To learn about the voting procedure of SEEDLatam and L2 en Español, you can read it here.


After the rejection of AIP-1, amendments to the Constitution and the Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association of The Arbitrum Foundation (the “A&R M&A”) and the Bylaws are necessary. These are the foundation for the orderly development of the Foundation and the ArbitrumDAO.

We will express some comments.

Amendments to the Constitution

  • Make explicit that the DAO may make a Non-Constitutional Funding AIP with respect to the Administrative Budget Wallet.

    We believe it is important for the DAO to have the ability and can make AIPs on the Administrative Budget Wallet. This gives more legitimacy to the ArbitrumDAO.

  • Lower the threshold number of Votable Tokens required for an AIP to be posted on-chain from 5,000,000 $ARB to 1,000,000 $ARB.

    Contributes to the decentralization of the DAO, we believe it is an appropriate value.

  • Add a new Section 5, which details the Data Availability Committee, including processes for removing and appointing Data Availability Committee members.

    As we clarified in AIP-1 and AIP-1.1, we would like the relationship between OffChain Labs and the Data Availability Committee to be detailed. We would also like to know the criteria for selection.

Amendments to the Bylaws

The majority of the points mentioned have already been resolved; our community is more than satisfied.

Modifications to the A&R M&A

Nothing to comment on.


As we mentioned earlier, these amendments are necessary to continue the orderly path towards the launch of the Arbitrum Foundation.

About the other Proposals