Experimental Delegates Incentive System
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to ABSTAIN in this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
Considering that we have proposed ourselves as the experimental system’s Administrators and although we think that delegates are the core base of the DAO and should be properly incentivized to maintain active participation, both in voting and feedback on proposals and in the ideation of governance processes, we believe that the right thing to do is to abstain from voting to avoid any possible conflict of interest.
[Non-Constitutional]: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check
Rationale
In principle, we believe it is valuable to introduce Arbitrum to the diversification of its treasury through investment in Real World Assets (RWA) while leveraging this goal to also incentivize the deployment of protocols on the network.
However, there are some points that we believe should be improved before moving forward with the proposal:
- More clarity towards the goals of approving this budget. Is it to diversify the treasury? That seems too limited. Is it to experiment with RWA? Is it to incorporate as many providers as possible into Arbitrum?
- More clarity towards the expected timeline. How much time should we expect until the screening committee publishes the RPF? How much time will they review applications? Once investments are done, how much time do you consider must be waited until STEP it’s considered successful? Or what milestone must be achieved to consider it concluded?
- More clarity towards RFP and how to evaluate the committee’s work. If it’s not possible to have the definitive version of the RFP before the tally vote, it would be great to have some guidance points on how it will look like and what we can expect of their work.
- A detailed breakdown of the budget. I expect to have a full breakdown on how the 200K ARB are going to be used for the implementation of the proposal.
Also, as @pedrob stated, it is necessary for us as a DAO to define short-medium-long term objectives, to have a consensus on what to spend on, and to make a framework for investments that aligns with the sentiment of the DAO itself.
We hope that through STEP 1 we can learn about how we want to manage treasury more broadly, so that we can implement a strategy for both spending and investing, considering the impact, cost/benefit, and sustainability of each decision.
Conclusion
We believe that, although the proposal is headed in the right direction, it still lacks clarity on some issues that we consider essential for approval.
We will again support the proposal on tally if these issues are clarified and included in the proposal.
ArbOS 20 “Atlas” - Arbitrum Support for Dencun + Batch Poster Improvements
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR both proposals at the Temperature Check and Tally vote
Rationale
We are clearly in favor of the proposed changes and are excited to see the benefits this update can bring to the entire Arbitrum community.
Conclusion
We are confident in Offchain Labs’ ability to continue to improve the Arbitrum ecosystem and appreciate their commitment to publish the relevant audits before submitting the on-chain vote.
Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check
Rationale
As said in the conclusion of our previous rationale regarding the first version of this proposal, the support of all users to help grow the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial for attracting new potential users.
However, the first proposal lacked sufficient elements to evaluate the contributions made by the Arbiters, the ARB amount requested was somewhat high and there were no details on the payments made in the past by the foundation.
On this occasion, the proposal has been clearer, although somewhat chaotic, it has allowed the delegates to have a closer look at the work done and thus have more certainty about the impact generated.
At the same time, we have obtained reliable information on the payments made by the Foundation in the past and the amounts requested have dropped considerably.
Conclusion
In summary and as mentioned by @maxlomu, we believe that the total compensation achieved between the USDCs paid by the Foundation and the ARBs required from the DAO seems fair based on the contributions and time the Arbiters have made to this ecosystem.
Finally, we would like to state that we agree with @krst statement and we also suggest that the DAO should not consider such votes in the future unless there is a very strong reason to do so.
Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check
Rationale
Although we believe that both the gaming industry in general and this project have a lot of potential, some aspects do not allow us to support this proposal.
First of all, we understand that this is not the most desirable way to award/apply for grants. It is inefficient and complex both for the devs (who in case they have to apply individually in different proposals are forced to understand the flow of a proposal and the ins and outs of the DAO functioning) and for the delegates, who should consider and give feedback on each proposal separately. We therefore consider that we should avoid establishing such a precedent.
Secondly, and concerning the above, we would like to see this type of proposal within a developer grant framework where various actors in the industry can apply.
Conclusion
Although we find the proposal reasonable and promising, we consider that it is necessary to focus on having a comprehensive framework that allows us to better establish the processes to be followed as well as the objectives we pursue when investing in Gaming as a DAO.