SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread

[ONCHAIN VOTE] Fund the Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1

On July 27 we had our 7th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed this proposal with our community.

Participants: 22 attendees

Duration: 37 minutes


Decision

We voted in favor

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

If you missed our governance call you can watch it here

Rationale

Even though we initially voted against this proposal during the temperature check, we consider the modifications implemented between the temperature check and the onchain execution of said proposal to be good enough to support it, for the following reasons:

  • Implementing the Zodiaz module and a 4/6 multisig with 4 members of the DAO and 2 members of Plurality Labs helps make the program more capture resistant, especially since the DAO has the power to remove signers of said multisig.
  • They significantly reduced the amount asked from the DAO, which makes the financial downside of this program considerably low if it fails compared to the potential upside involved in having a successful grant program.
  • Some metrics were added, which still remain a bit broad and could potentially be narrowed down a bit, but we understand it’s not easy to have specific goals for a broad program.

Conclusion

The modifications implemented make the program capture resistant and with a low financial risk for the DAO, making it reasonable and worth trying.

8 Likes

Proposal: Security Council Elections Proposed Implementation Spec

On August 10th we had our 8th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed this proposal with our community.

Participants: 22 attendees

Duration: 21 minutes


Decision

We voted in favor

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

If you missed our governance call you can watch it here

Rationale

Same as we did before, we strongly support this proposal to implement modifications to the way the security council election will be carried out. Not only it adds a bit more clarity to the dates involved but it also ensures the onchain execution of the whole process. We’re looking forwards to the elections and want to appreciate the job done by Tally, the Foundation, and anyone else involved in this process.

9 Likes

Proposal to onboard Matrixed.Link as a validator for Arbitrum

On August 16th we had our 9th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed this proposal with our community.

Participants: Unav - technical issues with poap

Duration: 23 minutes


Decision

We voted in Favor

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

*If you missed our governance call you can watch it here

Rationale

Even though we understand that currently the DAO lacks proper guidelines on how to proceed with the implementation of a new validator and that BOLD isn’t live yet, we believe that it would make sense to support this type of proposal given Matrix.Link current track record plus the fact that having more validators could potentially increase Arbitrum’s security given it’s 1-of-n model.

7 Likes

Arbitrum DAO Grants Domain Allocator Nominations

On September 11 we had our 11th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed this proposal with our community.

Participants: 23 attendees

Duration: 1h 37m

Decision

Given the nature of this proposal, we’re going to cover our three votes in this single thread. Our votes were as follows:

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

If you missed our governance call you can watch it here

Rationale

Since this wasn’t really a traditional proposal, our approach to it had to vary a bit. As a delegation, we took the time to write summaries of each candidate and then review each of them individually with our own community, before proceeding to a vote for each domain. We also invited nominees to join our call and pitch themselves to our communities, so that they could have a chance to learn more about the proposals - to this, we just want to say thank you to all of those who made it to our call and managed to even translate their docs to Spanish.

Once our community had an informed opinion on each individual candidate, we proceeded with the voting. One thing to note is that even though our community voted in favor of us proceeding with a self-vote, we left it as a final recourse, but didn’t use this in the end.

Conclusion

We’re very excited to be Domain Allocators for QuestBook’s grant program, a proposal that we’ve been supporting since the very start and that we’re very happy to see come to fruition.

3 Likes

Arbitrum Short-term incentive Program

On September 11 we had our 11th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed this proposal with our community.

Participants: 23 attendees

Duration: 1h 37m

Decision

We decided to vote first for 75M, 50M and at last 25M

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

If you missed our governance call you can watch it here

Rationale

Given the fact that liquidity incentive proposals are still to be proven to be efficient, we believe that the DAO currently is at a stage in which it can take the liberty to experiment with these programs and learn what could be improved in order to ensure that incentives proposals avoid attracting mercenary capital + keep a sticky TVL.

We also believe this is a good way to have a more generalized approach towards incentivizing liquidity, instead of simply prioritizing specific protocols over others. Making it more fair for current protocols and also less conflicting.

Conclusion

We’re looking forward to the implementation of this incentive proposal, we feel that the DAO is in a good position to start experimenting with liquidity incentives and the amounts asked for seem reasonable.

4 Likes

Hey everyone!

Due to the surge in current and upcoming activities in ArbitrumDAO, and as we previously indicated, my delegation, along with the @SEEDLatam and L2 en Español teams, are reorganizing to efficiently manage the workload and keep up with governance decisions.

For this reason, we’ve assigned @SEEDGov and some members of our team to analyze the proposals from the Arbitrum’s Short-Term Incentive Program (Arbitrum Improvement Proposal). Meanwhile, @seedlatam and I will be focused on the Security Council Elections 101 and the Delegated Domain Allocation by Questbook - Arbitrum DAO Grants

Our primary goal with this organization is to stay informed about all the crucial decisions in ArbitrumDAO and convey accurate information to our community, which constantly supports us in decision-making.

We are excited about the upcoming challenges and trust we will meet the expectations and requirements of Arbitrum to contribute to its success.

6 Likes

Arbitrum as official sponsor of Ethereum Mexico 2023

On September 28 we had our 12th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 en Español where we discussed this proposal with our community.

Participants: 29 attendees

Duration: 42m

Decision

We voted in Favor

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

If you missed our governance call you can watch it here

Rationale

As a Latin American delegation, we’re very excited to vote in favor of a proposal of this sort - we strongly believe that promoting IRL events and conferences will help increase education on Arbitrum and L2s in the region, potentially bringing the next wave of users & builders. Also, considering how strong the presence of some alt-L1’s is in the region, we should encourage more events of this sort to bring more awareness to Ethereum L2s and how Arbitrum offers a better experience for users (both in safety and ecosystem-wise).

Apart from this we also wanted to mention that it might be possible to simply pass this proposal through our QuestBook Domain (following the due process of course), which could be easier for the DAO and grantees - this of course if the Domain is live by this week. We would’ve done this before, but since we weren’t sure on the timeline and knowing that ETH Mexico starts in ~20 days, we decided to pass it through governance too just in case our domain wasn’t ready by then. So we extend an invitation to @brichis to discuss this if they are interested.

Conclusion

We’re happy to support this proposal, and we also want to discuss potentially passing it through our QuestBook Domain instead of through onchain governance.

4 Likes

GM @cattin! I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to analyze and discuss our proposal with your community. We greatly appreciate your input and will heed the recommendation from @krst and you. So, we would will like to proceed as per your suggestion and apply via the Questbook Domain.

Could you please guide us on the next steps in this process? Once again, thank you for your invaluable support.

3 Likes

Communication and processes for the selection of the Security Council for SEEDLatam

As committed representatives in Arbitrum’s governance, the @seedlatam team wishes to share our decision regarding the members of the Security Council. In addition, we aim to be transparent about the criteria we consider for our choice and the internal voting process we follow.

Internal Voting

As we have mentioned on various occasions, our votes are always community-based. @Seedlatam and this delegation strive to represent the voice of the Latin American community. From our beginnings and in other governance, we have maintained this approach. However, we recognize the risk of a Sybil attack due to the increasing number of participants in our governance calls. Although we are in the process of moving our votes to Snapshot, we are aware of the complexity of establishing effective filters when making decisions.

Based on this premise, we have chosen to limit the vote for the selection of the Security Council members only to this delegation’s team. The reason is clear: the selection of the Security Council members is of great importance and is a delicate matter when discussing the leading rollup of the ecosystem. Our priority is not only the security of Arbitrum but also that of the hundreds of protocols that operate within the chain.

Criteria

For this vote, we have divided the vote into 2 parts and have established the following criteria:

Selection of 3 Technical Members

We assigned 2/3 of our voting power to three members with a technical profile, giving approximately ~622k ARB to each. The criteria we have taken into account for this selection include:

  • Deep Technical Understanding: It is essential that the members of the Security Council have robust technical knowledge. They must fully understand how the Arbitrum protocol works and also know and be confident about what they are endorsing or signing.
  • Reputation: We believe it is important that the members of the Security Council have an impeccable reputation. It is vital that DAO members can evaluate and trust this reputation.
  • Commitment to Arbitrum: It is crucial that the selected members resonate with the values and principles of Arbitrum. We especially value those who have contributed to the protocol or are part of a protocol already implemented in Arbitrum.

Selection of 3 Non-Technical Member Profiles

We have assigned 1/3 of our voting power to three members with a non-technical profile, giving approximately ~310k ARB to each one. The criteria we have considered for this selection include:

  • Regional Diversity: It is vital that council members are distributed in different geographical locations and time zones. This ensures 24-hour availability and strengthens the council’s resilience against specific regulations and jurisdictions.
  • Reputation: As with the previous technical member selection, it’s essential that council members have a solid reputation and are trustworthy.
  • Diversity of Skills: Although we highly value technical profiles, we believe having members who bring other competencies is essential. These profiles can enrich the council’s perspective and help identify and address various challenges, such as legal issues.

Member Selection

Members with a technical profile:

  • Harry Kalodner: Probably the candidate that best understands Arbitrum and its tech stack. He is closely aligned with Arbitrum in various aspects. His reputation precedes his actions, and I consider it crucial to have members from Offchain Labs on the council, at least in these early stages of ArbitrumDAO.
  • OMER: He has an excellent technical profile and extensive knowledge of protocols. As CEO of Chaos Labs, both he and his company have an impeccable reputation and are aligned with Arbitrum.
  • YQ: He is highly technically and deeply understands Rollups in general. As the founder of Altlayer, he has an excellent reputation, as does his company. Also, his relationship with Arbitrum is strengthened by Altlayer’s business model.

Members with a non-technical profile:

  • DisruptionJoe.eth (U.S.): Joe has shown great commitment to Arbitrum. He has made numerous contributions to ArbitrumDAO and also has extensive experience in human coordination.
  • Pablito.eth (Argentina): Pablo is a member of our community with a background in Cybersec, well known for supporting crypto education in the region.
  • Patrick McCorry (United Kingdom): He’s been actively involved in the DAO since its inception and is clearly aligned with Arbitrum’s interests. As mentioned earlier, we believe having members from Offchain Labs at this stage would be reasonable.

Conclusion

We believe that the Security Council members’ first election is vital. For this reason, we carried out the vote following the previously established criteria. We also believe that in these first steps towards decentralization, it’s essential to have members from Offchain Labs on the security council.

8 Likes

Arbitrum Short-term Incentive Program

On October 11th, we held our 13th governance call at SEED Latam in collaboration with L2 in Spanish, where we discussed how to allocate votes from the Short-term incentive program with our community.

Participants: 55 attendees

Duration: 1h 20m

Process

Given the nature of the vote and the large volume of proposals, as I have already mentioned, we formed a working group to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the proposals. The process was as follows:

  1. We examined the initial 106 proposals, asking specific questions related to each protocol.
  2. From those, we selected 32 proposals totaling 54,398,000 ARB.
  3. The community had the opportunity to vote for the protocols on our Snapshot, aiming to reach the 50M ARB figure. If you wish to understand our process in depth, you can refer to here and here.
  4. Based on the community voting results, we cast our vote on the Arbitrum snapshot in favor of the protocols that received the most support. Below, you will find a detailed list of these proposals.

Voting and rational

For:

  1. Archi Finance
  2. AngleProtocol
  3. Balancer
  4. Beefy
  5. Camelot
  6. Curve
  7. Dolomite
  8. Dopex
  9. Gamma
  10. GMX
  11. JonesDAO
  12. OmniBTC
  13. PancakeSwap
  14. Perennial Finance
  15. Pendle
  16. Radiant
  17. Ramses
  18. StakeDAO
  19. Sanko GameCorp
  20. Shell protocol
  21. Silo
  22. Socket
  23. Stargate
  24. Tally
  25. Thales
  26. Timeswap
  27. Trader Joe
  28. Umami Finance

Abstain:

  1. GMD Ecosystem
  2. MUX
  3. Lodestar Finance
  4. WINR Protocol
  5. Shell Protocol

Against:

  • All protocols that were left out of this list

Conclusion

The volume of proposals was substantial, and the time for evaluation was limited. Surely, as governance, we need to continue refining the process, but despite these challenges, achieving this fund allocation coordinated by ArbitrumDAO has been a success.

On our part, as SEED Latam, we acknowledge that our process was somewhat cumbersome and confusing but by no means arbitrary. We always include and educate the community when making decisions. We have learned from this experience and will continue to enhance our internal processes for the benefit of Arbitrum and our community.

7 Likes

Proposal: Empowering Early Contributors: The Community Arbiter Proposal

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote in Favor of this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

We believe it is important to retroactively reward Arbitrers who collaborated in the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem in its early days. These early collaborations are important and beneficial to the ecosystem and should be recognised and compensated.

Consideration

We would like to clarify that this decision is subject to change for voting in Tally, as we would like the proposal to include the following details in the next phase:

  • List of the 25 members, with their discord user, Twitter (or other social media if possible) and the address where they will receive the funds
  • Criteria considered for the election of the members
  • Description of their contributions and tasks they performed. Link and metrics, we know this is difficult, but we believe there is surely data to collect.
  • Multisig address where funds and signatories will be received

Conclusions

We should keep in mind as DAO that this kind of proposal opens the door for other contributors to ask for retroactive payments for past contributions. Perhaps in the future, we should establish a general framework to be able to filter this type of proposal.

3 Likes

Proposal: Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST)

The @SEEDLatam delegation, led by myself, has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

We recognize the value of these projects in attracting new users to the ecosystem. However, we have decided to vote against for the following reasons:

  • We consider the requested amount of 1M to be excessive, especially when compared to RabbitHole’s proposal, which requests half that amount. Although we understand that they take a different approach.
  • The proposal is adjusted with the STIP execution date, taking into account that on-chain voting takes 2 weeks the schedule seems to be quite tight.
  • We would like more details on expenses to understand the amount of tokens requested.
  • We would also like more details of the missions to be executed and an estimate of the metrics you believe you can achieve.

Conclusions

We hope that the proposal will include more details and that the costs will be justified and detailed. As we mentioned at the beginning, we know that this type of project attracts new users and could be beneficial to the arbitrum ecosystem.

2 Likes

Proposal: Activate ARB Staking

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

After reading the entire proposal and all the debate it has generated, we have decided to vote against it for the following reasons:

  • We believe that 12 months for an experimental proposal is too long. Perhaps it should be reduced to 6 or 3 months and iterated upon as some results are measured.
  • 1% of the Circulating Supply is a high amount to offer as a stake incentive.
  • We agree with @Michigan_Blockchain that a minimum APR of 7.8% for users to accumulate the tokens passively will likely attract nearly all token holders. This will result in a loss of liquidity for $ARB across all exchanges and diminish its use as collateral in monetary markets. It is counterproductive to the goal of driving network and ecosystem growth as voted in the STIP incentives.
  • As @pedrob mentions, there should be some pre-established metrics that this proposal aims to achieve. We would also like to see metrics from other staking programs with different governance tokens, listing the pros and cons.
  • We also don’t think that adding staking to increase token inflation would add ‘utility’ to Arbitrum’s token.
  • There are several legal risks and complexities associated with a staking program, which may inadvertently transform ARB staking into an investment contract. It is important to distinguish between staking for the purpose of validating or securing a network and staking solely to receive a financial return.

Conclusions

We’re always down to explore new ways to add utility to Arbitrum’s token, but we simply don’t think that this proposal would achieve that goal. Plus, it needs more detail and a clearer definition of the objectives it seeks to achieve. Lastly, for an experimental proposal, the time and amount involved are quite significant. We also believe we can innovate with more than just staking the ARB token.

2 Likes

[PROPOSAL] - Consolidate Security Proposals into a RFP Process

The @SEEDLatam delegation decided to vote:

Note: We want to clarify that while we were analyzing the proposal and preparing this message, the @Cyfrin team decided to withdraw it. However, we believe it is positive to leave our feedback.

Rationale

As with our past vote, we consider it essential to establish a general framework for contracting service providers, where everyone can compete on an equal footing. This will enable ArbitrumDAO to evaluate and choose the best option in terms of cost, capability, and quality. Therefore, we support the initiative proposed by @dk3, which reflects the approach that the DAO should adopt to prevent centralization and the monopoly of services, as @pedrob expresses in their post. Furthermore, this method ensures that any provider has the chance to compete, thereby improving both the variety and quality of available alternatives. It also makes ArbitrumDAO an appealing environment for the most competent teams in the ecosystem.

Conclusion

We consider the Consolidate Security Proposals into a RFP Proces approach to be beneficial to ArbitrumDAO. We believe it is necessary for the vendor selection process to include the participation of recognized experts in the field of security auditing, as this is a critical area that requires knowledge and experience in the field.

We look forward to a more detailed description of the selection process that is fair, democratic, and competitive for all applicants prior to the Tally vote.

2 Likes

Proposal: The Arbitrum Coalition

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

We believe the proposal accurately identifies the needs of an emerging DAO that requires driving third-party proposals and providing assistance to delegates to make informed decisions.

The post begins by stating that the Arbitrum forum includes many worthwhile suggestions, but often lacks the research, coordination, design, and risk assessment necessary to move forward in an optimal manner.

Now, the question is, should it be the DAO’s responsibility to fund the research, coordination, or design of third-party proposals seeking Arbitrum funding? Shouldn’t it be its own responsibility to submit optimal proposals for approval? Who has an interest in having these proposals approved?

One could argue that the DAO does have an interest in financially supporting teams to deploy on its network, as this will create incentives for users to join the network, generating positive network effects that ultimately benefit the DAO and the value of the ARB token.

So what is the best way to achieve this?

First step: Establish a clear process or framework for projects to present their proposals. Even though there currently exists a template, we think it’s still to simple and might benefit from having some more details. Therefore, the first step should be to agree on a template or framework for those projects submitting proposals. This should include, at least:

  • Project Identification.
  • Team Overview (including previous successful works).
  • Milestones & Deliverables.
  • Supplementary Research.
  • Required Funding.
  • Commitment to transparency and accountability.
  • Disclosure of any conflict of interests.
  • Support Needed: Highlight any specific areas where the project requires pre-approval support or resources from The DAO.

Why? We agree that there may be cases where projects or just good ideas, as the Arbitrum Coalition proposal states, may not have the capacity to conduct the research, coordination, design, and risk assessment to move forward optimally on their own. And we are fine with projects asking for it.

How to financially support projects? This can be achieved in various ways:

  • Hire a governance facilitator to help them understand the processes and assist projects in preparing proposals.
  • Have the DAO contract a service provider to thoroughly study the proposals, recommend what is deemed advisable, and help the delegates decide.
  • Provide resources to the delegates so they can form their own teams and have the operational capacity to analyze the proposals. In this case, financially supporting only a certain percentage of the delegates will incentivize them to do their research and make more well-founded decisions. In this scenario, the ARB holders ultimately decide which delegates perform this task most efficiently, and, in theory, those will be the ones to receive a larger percentage of delegated ARB.

Hiring a Facilitator

We talked about this role some time ago but the DAO did not have the maturity and activity that it has today. This role encompasses what has been proposed here for The Advocate and makes it much more comprehensive, being key in assisting any participant in the governance of Arbitrum.

Hiring a Service Provider

The Arbitrum Coalition would act as a service provider. How can we ensure that this provider is neutral, does not favor particular projects, and does not conflict with the interests of the DAO?

One option is to bar this position to delegates or large ARB holders.

But this unfairly disadvantages the proponents, who have the reputation and track record to provide high-quality and efficient services to the DAO. Therefore, in line with what @dk3 said, we need to build trustless systems that don’t allow collusion or censorship. (we share the concerns described by him in his post)

What can be done? Utilize existing systems: Use the temperature check as a filter to decide which projects will receive the resources for the research, design, and risk assessment service provider to move forward optimally.

As it happens now, proposals that are approved via temperature checks are not necessarily complete or defined. Sometimes the approval comes from delegates supporting an idea or project, but with the condition that the proposal is strengthened.

This same system can be used for the DAO to express the intention that the project should receive assistance from the service provider. By this, before the on-chain vote delegates will have the necessary tools (research, risk assessment, etc.) to decide whether to approve that proposal or not.

Whom to hire as a service provider? As @pedrob argues in the Security Enhancement Fund proposal, the DAO could opt for approving a budget dedicated to subsidizing research and risk assessment, subsequently allowing each protocol to apply for the subsidy they deem necessary for deployment on Arbitrum. Complementing this, a list of recommended—or potentially mandatory—service providers could be voted on. This ensures that, when evaluating each application, the research and risk assessment are guaranteed to be conducted by a reputable and proficient service provider (such as Blockworks, Gauntlet, & Trail of Bits).

Providing resources to the delegates

Lastly, as we mentioned before, offering financial compensation will incentivize delegates to conduct their research and make decisions with a stronger foundation.

DAOs like MakerDAO incentivize their delegates with substantial resources, and their responsibilities extend beyond merely voting and communicating their vote—they also carry out sensitive tasks such as auditing spells and other activities related to governance security.

The expected tasks for the delegates could be specified, and a work regulation outlined that the facilitator will verify before executing payments.

Which do we believe is the best approach?

In our view, a resilient and decentralized system should feature a combination of the three strategies. A facilitator is contracted to support in the initial stage, the possibility of requesting funds prior to the final approval of the proposal, and providing delegates with greater resources so they can study the proposals in depth and with quality time.

Conclusion

We would like to thank Blockworks Research, Gauntlet, and Trail of Bits for the detailed proposal and, most importantly, for bringing this discussion to the table. We agree that the DAO should allocate resources to ensure that the proposals are well-supported and assist delegates in making informed decisions. In this case, we don’t agree with the proposed mechanism.

In this regard, we will support future proposals that include a detailed framework for how various service providers can present themselves to offer their services, rather than a specific allocation proposal for a single provider. There should also be specific milestones outlining the objectives to be pursued and KPIs that allow for the measurement of the results achieved.

Also, we agree with L2BEAT that the current delegate situation is not long-term sustainable.

We believe that a proposal of this nature, which aims to alleviate the workload of delegates and support them in their decision-making processes, should aim for a multi-faceted system. Resources should be allocated to a mixed solution where not just one concentrated point is incentivized, thereby mitigating all the risks and concerns detailed in this forum thread. To this end, we think it prudent to revisit the discussion about hiring a facilitator, the incentives for delegates, and ultimately, the framework for the contracting of service providers.

2 Likes

Proposal to Backfund Successful STIP Proposals (Savvy DAO) [DRAFT]

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

According to the STIP proposal, only 50 million ARB was originally allocated to support various projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, this fund was quickly exhausted due to the large number of proposals received in the forum (a total of 106). Unfortunately, only the initial 20 projects that gained community approval were able to secure the incentives, leaving several other projects, that were also approved by the community, without any financial funding.

Given this situation and motivated by the insights provided in tnorm’s proposal, which highlights the DAO’s capability to unlock additional funds to backfund successful proposals, we believe the action suggested by this proposal is reasonable.

Conclusion

We support this proposal because we acknowledge that this whole process was a bit experimental and it only seems fair to support those projects that had already been approved by the DAO but couldn’t fit within the budget. Going forward though we do want to emphasize that this type of extension shouldn’t be used for future STIPs and we should formulate a solution to prevent this from happening again.

4 Likes

Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Procurement Framework [Security Service Providers]

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

The proposal seeks to establish an RFP for selecting auditors or security service providers in the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe this is an essential first step to ensure high-quality services for the DAO in a fair and competitive way.

This will not only contribute to improving the current and future security of the projects and the ecosystem in general but will also encourage the participation of the parties that are truly interested and create healthy competition between security service providers.

Conclusion

The objective of this Snapshot vote was to keep following the right path of the previous proposal where the Arbitrum DAO voted in favor of Consolidate the Arbitrum Security into an RFP Process


AIP: ArbOS Version 11

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

We believe that updating all Arbitrum chains with the EVM Shanghai update, along with the PUSH0 opcode, is a wise decision to bring Arbitrum closer to the technological infrastructure of Ethereum. This ensures that new developers using Ethereum will feel comfortable working in Arbitrum.

The Shanghai update later or soon will have an indirect impact not only on Arbitrum but all L2 solutions that use Ethereum as L1. So, we believe that it is crucial to consider all technical changes that Ethereum undergoes to guarantee that Arbitrum will remain at the forefront of technological advancements.

Conclusion

We support the idea of keeping Arbitrum updated with all the changes that Ethereum will undergo to improve its performance. This action will indirectly enhance the L2 chains that Arbitrum DAO handles.


[TALLY]Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

Upon reviewing the information provided after the snapshot vote, we concluded that it’s simply too difficult to determine if the contributors are being compensated justly for their contributions to the DAO. We’re not trying to minimize their effort or make it sound like they don’t deserve any compensation, but we think it would be reasonable to make this compensation proportional to their contributions or at least have a clearer idea of what these contributions were, which would be expected for the amount being requested.

Most of the information provided is challenging to validate completely. We believe that it can be presented more clearly to assist all delegates in supporting this proposal.

Conclusion

The support of all users to help grow the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial for attracting new potential users. However, we believe that this kind of contribution requires a deeper explanation of the budget to maintain transparency.

3 Likes

Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

The proposal aims to establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee (ADPC) with the objective of ensuring transparency, efficiency and a responsible approach to procurement. This initiative is aimed at benefiting the Arbitrum ecosystem by ensuring high quality service providers.

We strongly believe that the ADPC will create an optimal organizational framework for the procurement of services. At the same time, it will establish a marketplace for service providers that have undergone preventive quality assurance, contributing to the overall improvement of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Conclusion

The creation of the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee is a crucial step to promote transparency, efficiency and accountability in procurement processes. By creating a structured framework and marketplace for pre-approved service providers, we anticipate significant improvements in the quality and reliability of services into the Arbitrum ecosystem.


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

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

The Arbitrum Research and Development Collective (ARDC) is designed to help Arbitrum users refine and improve their ideas, transforming them into solid DAO proposals. We believe that this support will ensure the creation of high quality proposals, promoting a positive impact into the Arbitrum DAO. This initiative is especially beneficial for new users with innovative ideas but little experience in participating in a forum.

Conclusion

The creation of the Arbitrum Research and Development Collective represents an interesting idea to help users refine their ideas and turn them into high-impact proposals. To us this is crucial to the continued growth and success of the Arbitrum DAO.


Long Term Incentives Pilot Program

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.

Rationale

I want to say that I appreciate all the effort that went into drafting this proposal. I understand that the whole STIP was a bit chaotic, so I really like seeing a proposal that aims to make its successor more efficient, but I’m not sure if this is the best way.

First of all, I feel like relying so heavily on a council could end up centralizing Arbitrum’s governance a bit too much, especially if it’s related to protocol incentives since they are essential for the development of the ecosystem. Because, even though I understand that it was a burden for most delegates, I think that we could just give them more time to review proposals (with longer review windows and feedback periods). This, coupled with compensations for delegates, could alleviate the burden.

Replacing delegates with a council might be more efficient in a way, but it also takes away value from governance - if I’m not wrong, many protocols started engaging with the DAOs governance thanks to STIP.

Second, I think some expenses are a bit too high and might not be necessary. I understand that the DAO has a massive treasury but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be a bit more careful with it ~ excluding the incentives, there’s an additional 815,000 ARB requested for various purposes, this amounts to roughly $1.7M. For example, I think that the program shouldn’t include the role of the advisor since, ideally, with a longer timeframe, feedback should come from the delegates + it would encourage protocols to learn the DAO governance process. As a side note, I noticed that @SEEDGov applied to this role, but I just wanted to state that our delegation decides independently from the organization.

Conclusion

Eventhough I like the direction towards this proposal is going, I think we have to develop a program that seeks more involvement from the delegates and relies less on centralized committees.

2 Likes

LTIPP Council + Advisor elections

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote for the following candidates to form the council for the Long-Term Incentives Pilot Program.

Pilot Program Advisor Elections

  • @JoJo: Has been acting as an allocator in the domain of ‘Ideas for new protocols’ for the Questbook platform. We believe their experience assisting various projects in applying for grants adds significant value to the council.
  • @Boardroom: They have considerable demonstrable experience in governance, their alignment with Arbitrum’s values is clear. They have shown credible neutrality in other governance and very good communication skills, which we consider important for this position.
  • Abstention: We did not vote for a third position because @SEEDGov was a candidate and it was a conflict of interest for this delegation.

Pilot Program Council Elections

  • @GFXlabs: We are familiar with the work of GFX Labs in other governances (Optimism, MakerDAO), we believe their experience is necessary for this first instance of the Council.
  • @karpatkey: We are also very familiar with karpatkey’s treasury management work in other DAOs, we believe they are the right profile for the council. They have demonstrated their knowledge in this excellent report on Arbitrum’s Treasury.
  • @Bob-Rossi: Has a general knowledge of the Ethereum and Arbitrum ecosystem. In addition, he is an active delegate and has demonstrated alignment with the values of Arbitrum. We believe this general vision can be an added value for the council.
  • @therollupco: They have great knowledge about the Defi ecosystem in Arbitrum and have also been active in giving visibility to the protocols that were selected in STIPv1.
  • @karelvuong: Their experience within and alignment with Arbitrum is very clear. We believe they are the only person who has knowledge and experience in web3 gaming. We believe it is important for them to be part of the council given their profile and the clear need within arbitrum to support this ecosystem.

We want to make it clear that although the @SEEDLatam delegation voted against the Long Term Incentives Pilot Program, for the reasons expressed here. We believe that as a delegation we must respect the will of the DAO, which approved the program, hence we have dedicated time to evaluate each applicant. While we may not always agree with some proposals, our main objective and responsibility is to contribute to the success of Arbitrum as we announced from the beginning in this governance.

6 Likes

Security Council Improvement Proposal

The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote “Increase the threshold to 9/12” in this proposal at the Temperature Check

Rationale

As mentioned by other delegates at the RFC, increasing the minimum number of signatories from 7 to 9 is the least intrusive and easiest to reverse as it does not require on-chain changes.

On the other hand, considering that the Security Council is a crucial component of Arbitrum, we insist on creating some kind of Emergency Response Drills, which should be audited by a third party, to evaluate the efficiency of the council’s response times.

Broadly speaking, the idea is to define certain response parameters that the DAO expects to be satisfactorily met by the Security Council, including response time, and number of signatories, among other aspects.

Conclusion

After carefully reviewing the proposal and considering the comments from @dzack23, we believe that option 1 is the most appropriate.

1 Like