Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “(1st) Abstain, (2nd) Against, (3rd) Panda Partners, (4th) Unicorn Partners” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
While we generally support initiatives of this nature, as they contribute positively to the ecosystem, our experience reviewing multiple event sponsorship requests in the Domain Allocator by Questbook prompts us to seek additional budgetary details. The claim that the funding goal is up to $2 million requires further clarification.
Additionally, despite mentioning marketing integrations, we observed no dedicated workshop or side event for the sponsor. This is a common practice we typically require when approving grants in Questbook, and it would be beneficial to include such an offering in this proposal.
Extend Delay on L2Time Lock
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We value the framework developed by L2BEAT as a guide for this initiative and recognize the necessity of this update for two key reasons:
- Extending the window for users to exit the network in the event of an unwanted update is ethically sound and enhances the confidence of those looking to invest their capital in Arbitrum.
- Providing the Security Council with additional time to address potentially malicious proposals is, without question, a prudent measure. We believe this approach reinforces the principle that security is always the top priority.
STIP-Bridge Operational Budget
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Given our financial involvement in the proposal, our policy in such cases is to abstain, as we believe this approach is both morally and ethically correct.
[Replace Oversight Committee with MSS] Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Regardless of the outcome at Tally, it seems reasonable for the control of the ARBs to transfer to the MSS, as was agreed upon at its formation. Additionally, this transfer would result in significant savings in administrative costs.
Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon (Tally vote)
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
Although we are maintaining our favorable vote on this occasion and had already provided a rationale for our vote in Snapshot, considering the time gap between one vote and another, we felt it was worthwhile to reaffirm our position on this proposal.
Since the amount to be delegated barely represents 7% of the quorum needed for an on-chain proposal and there are oversight mechanisms in place by the DAO (the MSS), we see the proposal as a controlled experiment.
On the other hand, in the early stages of SEEDLatam (now SEEDGov) we ran a similar experiment with delegations over a year and a half, (which you can view here) making it particularly interesting for us to observe the outcome of this initiative.
ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee Phase II
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “Yes - Extend” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Initially, we had reservations about whether to support the initiative, particularly considering the broad scope, the allocated budget, and the ongoing discussion regarding the re-election of committee members.
In this case, we align with @JoJo’s view that it is premature to rotate these positions after only six months—a shortcoming in the original proposal. We hope to see an annual initiative developed to provide greater predictability and more time to assess the committee’s results.
That said, we choose to extend a vote of confidence to the committee, as we appreciate the work accomplished thus far.
Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.
Rationale
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delays in both cases, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
- The incentives detox was approved by the DAO, and allowing the distribution of incentives during this period would contradict the essence of this social agreement. We believe it would also set a problematic precedent for future agreements.
- Voting on extensions individually is impractical for the DAO and risks overburdening delegates. In our view, a blanket extension would be more appropriate
- Additionally, granting an extension at this stage presents a competitive disadvantage to those who no longer have incentives to distribute or already returned unused ARB from LTIPP.
We hope that in the future there will be longer programs or a streamlined mechanism in place to resolve this kind of friction.
Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We see no reason not to support this proposal given that it is costless and beneficial for the Arbitrum ecosystem. Agree with @Castlecapital on the need for a standardized process for this kind of migration.
Fund the Stylus Sprint
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
SEEDGov views the proposed initiative as generally well-structured, and we welcome the integration of Questbook, alongside the commendably low operational costs.
However, we believe that the suggested maximum ARB allocation for individual applicants is excessive. Allowing a single applicant to receive up to 20% of the total budget (1M out of 5M ARB) seems unfeasible. We recommend capping the maximum allocation at 10% of the overall budget.
Furthermore, as mentioned by @BlockworksResearch, we would like to underscore the importance of the reporting outlined in the proposal. We hope that established communication channels, such as the ‘Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call,’ will be utilized to enhance the dissemination of these reports.
[Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delay, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
- The incentives detox was approved by the DAO, and allowing the distribution of incentives during this period would contradict the essence of this social agreement. We believe it would also set a problematic precedent for future agreements.
- Voting on extensions individually is impractical for the DAO and risks overburdening delegates. In our view, a blanket extension would be more appropriate
- Additionally, granting an extension at this stage presents a competitive disadvantage to those who no longer have incentives to distribute or already returned unused ARB from LTIPP.
Proposal to adopt Timeboost, a new transaction ordering policy
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Collect bids in ETH to the treasury” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
In the first instance, we welcome the socialisation with the DAO of the gains of those who capture MEV without creating changes to the user experience.
However, having read ARDC’s comparison of Timeboost to other transaction ordering policies, and ARDC’s risk analysis of Timeboost, we would like to highlight the importance of post-implementation monitoring. Without reporting, the DAO will lack the necessary tools to be able to follow the outcome and drive changes in the pre-established parameters. Just to give an example, the -reservePrice- parameter can be modified to avoid collusion at the auction stage, without active monitoring of bids it will be difficult for the DAO to mitigate these risks in a timely manner.
Finally, we agree with @WintermuteGovernance:
This option gives the possibility to decide in the future what to do with the revenue coming from Timeboost and since there are currently active discussions on Treasury Management/Diversification as well as a working group on ARB Staking has been created, we believe it is best to decide the fate of this revenue flow in the context of these two verticals.
Terms of Tenure for STEP Program Manager
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Additional funds for one year” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We recognise the tremendous effort it has taken to manage this proposal and that is why we see no point in going any other way than to honour the agreement and pay Steakhouse for the whole year. It would even be a dangerous precedent to take any other decision, as we would be sending the message to service providers that the volatility of ARB and the difficulties in converting it to stables that we face could somehow alter the agreement reached with the DAO.
For all these reasons, it is reasonable to use part of the yield obtained to cover the corresponding annual payment.
ArbitrumDAO Off-site
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships” in that order on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
While we normally support this kind of initiatives, in this particular case we believe that there is a considerable potential overlap with the GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity proposal and if we had to choose between both options, we would opt for the latter given that there are already positive precedents such as Brussels or Denver.
Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the offsites are contemplated in the proposal Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 so it would be interesting that for next year both alternatives are proposed in the framework of this program if it is approved.
[Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We would like to begin by expressing our appreciation for the Foundation’s work on the grants program. However, upon reviewing this proposal, there are a few aspects that raise concerns for the future:
- Lack of a clearer roadmap/timeline: While the general verticals for investment have been outlined, there is a lack of clarity on how the funds will be allocated, the expected duration of the grants, or the criteria for distribution. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding the long-term plan: once these funds are depleted, will the Foundation return to the DAO for additional funding?
- Shift from growth to sustainability: The DAO appears to be transitioning from a full-growth strategy to a more sustainable approach to fund management. This raises questions about the Foundation’s alignment with this new reality, particularly given that 250M ARB represents a significant portion of the treasury. We believe the DAO and the Arbitrum Foundation must work collaboratively, but from our perspective, this has not been happening sufficiently so far.
- In light of these concerns, we suggest that ARB disbursements be spread over time and aligned with a detailed roadmap from the Foundation. The MSS could collaborate with the Foundation to implement monthly or quarterly installments, rather than a vesting schedule, ensuring sufficient liquidity for larger deals while minimizing market disruptions from excessive disbursements.
- Need for oversight: To ensure that the Foundation’s actions are aligned with the DAO and to avoid redundancy with other DAO-funded programs, we support the creation of an oversight committee, as proposed by other delegates. This committee should have full access to relevant information, including sensitive data that the Foundation has indicated it cannot disclose publicly.
We hope to see some of this feedback reflected in the final proposal on Tally, in which case we will consider voting in favor. We regret that this feedback has come at a later stage, but we believe the pre-snapshot discussion period has been quite short (just one week for a proposal requesting approximately 8% of the treasury). As such, we recommend extending the discussion to allow for more thorough deliberation.
GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
With successful precedents such as Brussels and Denver, both of which led to the development of various DAO initiatives as a result of the IRL delegates’ meetings, we are excited about the upcoming edition of GovHack.
We would also like to highlight the reduced budget compared to previous events. While part of this reduction is due to the location, it’s noteworthy that the event is still more cost-effective, even with the inclusion of exclusive discussion sessions for delegates and a four-week post-event follow-up.
Before casting our vote on Tally, we would appreciate it if @KlausBrave could provide additional details regarding the venue budget as well as the mechanisms for distributing prizes and scholarships.
Security Council Elections - Nominee Selection
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote for:
Dennison Bertram - CEO at Tally
HAARON - Quant at Blockchain.com
Gzeon - Smart Contract at Offchain Labs
Rationale
In our selection process, we have prioritized the following criteria:
- Technical expertise: At SEEDGov, we exclusively consider candidates with a strong technical background, placing particular emphasis on those with verifiable experience in blockchain security. It’s important to remember that the Council is responsible for securing millions of dollars on-chain, a responsibility that cannot be taken lightly.
- Alignment with Arbitrum: We also assess the degree of alignment candidates have with the Arbitrum ecosystem. We generally favor individuals or organizations that are already contributing value or providing services to the Arbitrum community.
- Geographic diversity: The selected candidates represent various continents, which not only strengthens the Council’s security but also ensures coverage across different time zones, allowing signatories to be available at any time of the day.
Looking ahead, we encourage candidates to provide more detailed information for easier verification, including links to their GitHub profiles, examples of previous work, and direct contributions to Arbitrum.
[Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Given Infura’s strong reputation within the crypto ecosystem and the validator’s track record of excellent uptime, we see this proposal as an easy yes.
We also share the sentiment expressed by other delegates regarding whether the DAO will need to whitelist additional validators in the future or if this is a one-time consideration.
Research on context and retention
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We believe this report can provide valuable insights to the DAO at no additional cost. Given that the Foundation has already provided feedback about privacy policies and on the wider proposal, we have decided to support it.
An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR - Use ENS txt records” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
As we expressed during the previous vote, we support this initiative as it significantly improves information accessibility, enabling external parties to learn about various DAO details in one centralized location and at no cost to the DAO.
However, when selecting between the two options, we opted for the ENS txt records, prioritizing simplicity. Although we generally prefer the DAO to maintain as much autonomy as possible, keeping the information updated could prove challenging without a dedicated manager.
Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
During the Snapshot vote we have provided feedback that has not been considered, therefore we have decided to vote against the proposal in Tally.
[Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
SEEDGov understands the rationale behind this proposal. It’s true that the allocation received by the Foundation is relatively low compared to others, and the vesting structure significantly limits its ability to execute large-scale agreements. This situation puts the Arbitrum Foundation at a disadvantage in competing with other L2s.
However, during the Snapshot vote, we provided feedback that has neither been addressed nor acknowledged. As a result, while we generally support the proposal’s objectives, we are not comfortable voting in favor of it in its current form.
ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
We would like to begin by clarifying that when voting for this proposal on Snapshot, we were initially not inclined to support the IRL option due to its overlap with GovHack. Based on this, our primary choices were Against or Abstain, with the Online Event being our third option. On the latter point, we agree with @JoJo that the current schedule of calls and Working Groups in Arbitrum is already quite busy, which could hinder the success of this initiative.
Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
As we have already detailed in our rationale for Snapshot, we reiterate our support for the proposal and endorse the views expressed by other delegates on requiring a constitutional vote for these types of adjustments.
LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We share the other delegates’ position that evaluating the contributions is difficult due to the absence of clear guidelines. As a result, we decided to abstain from voting because we lacked the necessary elements to make an informed decision.
Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
-
It would be good to evaluate the impact that these events will have on the ecosystem with a kind of process similar to the evaluation to give a grant. In Questbook, specifically in the Education, Community Growth and Events domain, we try to put a lot of emphasis on having good budget breakdowns, KPIs, and deliverables, as it is a very efficient way to guarantee that the budgeted prices have the best possible Quality/Price ratio. Additionally, we always try to include some activities such as a workshop or a hackathon with arbitrum as the main topic within these events.
-
We suggested changing the voting threshold in Snapshot to match that required for a non-constitutional on-chain vote (3% of the votable supply). This feedback was incorporated into the final version.
-
We emphasized that in programs like this one (as well as in the Questbook domain mentioned), it is extremely important to weigh regional diversity, as it allows Arbitrum DAO to gain visibility across the globe.
-
Additionally, we highlighted that the maximums in Questbook (currently $50k USD) should remain aligned over time with the minimums of this proposal.
Security Council - Member Elections
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to split out votes between:
Dennison Bertram - CEO at Tally
Gzeon - Smart Contract at Offchain Labs
John Morrow - Co-founder at Gauntlet
Griff Green - Founder of Giveth
Rationale
In our selection process, we have prioritized the same criteria as the Nominee Selection Phase:
It’s important to mention that we maintained our vote as long as the candidate successfully passed the first phase of the voting.
[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
Considering that we are the proposers and have economic interests involved, we believe it is ethically correct to abstain from this vote.
We also want to thank all the Arbitrum DAO delegates for their overwhelming support of the proposal!. Throughout this process, we have received an immense amount of valuable feedback that has allowed us to build a more robust proposal, reaffirming the critical role of delegates in fostering pluralistic and intelligent governance.
The Tally vote was approved with 89.21% of the votes and the Delegate Incentive Program v1.5 will start in November as planned.
Fund the Stylus Sprint
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
Considering that we are part of the proposed Evaluation Committee and have economic interests involved, we believe it is ethically correct to abstain from this vote.
(V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Fund with 1.73M USDC + Council” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We support the continuation of the ARDC as expressed in our previous comment. We are pleased that the feedback we provided has been considered.
Also we opted for the most economical alternative because we believe that if the required work exceeds the approved compensation in any way, an additional budget can be allocated.
Building on what @krst mentioned, it might be beneficial to allocate payments for the two months of scheduled work by the applicants, with a residual budget set aside for “on-demand” content requested by the DAO which will be used to pay the SPs for their work as they deliver it. Given that the scope and depth of required research can vary, this approach would make it easier for the DAO to quantify exactly how much it is paying for each report in specific instead of just calculating an average.
[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
From SEEDGov we provided feedback before this proposal was voted on in Snapshot. While some of our questions were answered, several key issues remain unresolved.
- We believe that the original motivation for this proposal was to diversify the treasury, as explained in the report published by the proposer. However, this approach misinterprets the strict concept of portfolio diversification. Subsequently, the narrative shifted towards fostering chain growth and collaboration with other protocols closely aligned with Arbitrum. While this sounds promising, we believe it is unachievable under the current proposal.
- Our concerns are partly tied to the feedback we shared earlier. The proposal discusses long-term alignment, yet sets a short lock-in period. Additionally, there are no mechanisms for clawbacks or renewals in the token swaps, and while we understand this is framed as a pilot program, the proposed amounts are not substantial enough to attract significant players, with whom long-term agreements would be more feasible.
- Finally, only one of the members proposed to join the committee has commented on whether or not there are potential Conflicts of Interest with respect to the possible partners.
GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for Tim Chang and John Kennedy
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Reconfirm Tim Chang and John Kennedy to GCPC” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote / Snapshot Vote 2.
Rationale
We have closely followed the discussions surrounding the Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) and would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of allowing the GCP the necessary time and tools to function before making any further decisions about its future.
The GCP was one of the most significant proposals to come from Arbitrum’s governance in 2024. It underwent extensive debate, calls, and scrutiny by the DAO, which ultimately determined that the GCP represents a collaborative effort from a diverse group of ecosystem participants, resulting in a project with a collective ethos greater than any single actor involved.
That said, we believe that an initiative with such a sizable budget should naturally be subject to ongoing DAO scrutiny and, in due course, present detailed accountability reports.
Lastly, we understand how crucial it is that this initiative does not go leaderless. Regarding the two candidates, we align with the other delegates in recognizing the qualifications of both to join the Council, and we have no objection to giving them the opportunity to serve.