Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote ABSTAIN in this proposal at the Temperature Check.
Rationale
While we are broadly in favor of the continuation of this program, because we believe it has not only been successful but also has the potential to continue to generate benefits to the Arbitrum ecosystem, we have decided to abstain from voting in line with other similar situations (such as the experimental delegate incentive program, which we administer).
This decision responds to our conviction to avoid conflicts of interest as much as possible, considering that we are Domain Allocators in this Questbook program.
Catalyze Arbitrum Gaming: HADOUKEN!
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check
Rationale
Gaming is currently a very important vertical at DeFi, and we have already seen that several competitors in the L2s universe have started to take action to attract web3 game developers.
Since the development of quality video games is costly and time consuming, and when it comes to blockchain requires an environment to accompany it, we believe that a program like this is necessary, in which the DAO acts by providing not only funding but also a team of experts to collaborate in the analysis of each request that comes through a publisher or builder.
We are aware that given the large size of the grant this represents a vote of confidence and we look forward to seeing the final status of the proposal in tally.
[TALLY] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge)
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Tally Vote
Rationale
While we had supported the proposal at the Temperature Check we also mentioned on several occasions the importance of having quantifiable objectives and greater precision in terms of the execution of the program itself.
Despite considering that the Plurality Labs program has had some achievements to its credit, we should not forget that several of the milestone 1.a objectives were not met and that in this bridge 1.b it is extremely important to be able to accurately monitor its progress.
That is why, despite the inclusion of an Advisory Board, we stick to our decision made on snapshot where we stated that without more quantifiable objectives we won’t be able to support this proposal.
Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote FOR this proposal at the Temperature Check
Rationale
First of all, we are delighted to see the interest of the Tally team in continuing to improve the governance process at Arbitrum, we believe they are making very significant contributions and that leads us to have great confidence in them.
That said, the proposed changes are a resounding YES, from the small details (such as showing the changes to a proposal when passing from Snapshot to Tally or showing more information about when a quorum is reached) to the more important ones, such as being able to cancel a proposal in case of errors or integrating the Karma dashboard providing greater visibility to the work of the delegates.
We also welcome the initiative to investigate how to perform partial delegations and shielded voting, which as we have mentioned previously, could be something worth exploring for the Security Council elections.
Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check
Rationale
We’re concerned about how rushed this proposal was and the fact that it feels like taking one step back instead of building on what we could get from the LTIP. Personally, I think that by rushing an incentives program, we risk giving incentives to protocols that might not be used efficiently - this could end up harming innovation throughout the ecosystem, similar to what happens in nations that subsidize certain sectors heavily.
Also in relation to the strong competition with other L2s solutions, the market is clearly heated and other chains will start launching their tokens; so I don’t think that simply injecting more tokens will change this, nor will it really give us much of a competitive advantage vs other ecosystems, since many will be doing the same. What I think we should do is double down on protocols that, through their innovation, will help us compete, and not based on whether they qualified for other incentive rounds.
We believe that a complete analysis should be prioritized at the end of LTIP to allow us to design a long-term joint framework that does not distinguish protocols by whether they received funding from one program or another.