SEEDGov Delegate Communication Thread
Following the standards of SEEDGov, this is our thread with all our relevant decisions and participation in ArbitrumDAO’s governance.
Our previous voting activity is detailed here.
January 2025
[Constitutional AIP] Activate Arbitrum BoLD + Infura Nova Validator Whitelist
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
Considering what was expressed when we voted on Snapshot:
We still believe that BoLD is a necessary step in the roadmap of any rollup that seeks to be as decentralized, censorship-resistant, and secure as possible.
Regarding the Infura whitelist, we maintain our previously stated position:
Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
From our perspective, STEP is one of the best-executed programs within the DAO.
Several strong points allow us to continue trusting the team designated for this task:
- The choice of Service Providers, including web2 institutions like Blackrock and web3-native entities like Mountain and Ondo among the selected ones, demonstrates not only reliable criteria but also a strategic deployment of funds between reputable actors from different sectors.
- The dashboard was handy for tracking the funds’ evolution, although we would add more on-chain info for each holding and more details of the transactions made, providing greater clarity on the dates each investment was executed, the current location of the funds, etc.
- The reporting has also been useful, though it would be reasonable to observe the intra-month variations of each holding more easily. For instance, to observe the addition of TBILLs from OpenEden, one must compare the reports from November and December as there is no written mention or graphical indication. Despite this, the periodic updates on changes to the backing of each asset are highly valuable information.
- The estimated budget costs seem reasonable, considering that less time will be required to review applications from service providers who already participated in STEP 1.
- As expressed by @L2Beat, perhaps in the future, this work could fall under the scope of the TMC and GM, all within a comprehensive Treasury Management strategy that we hope the OpCo will develop in coordinating these initiatives. Meanwhile, STEP has proven its value and should continue, as these precedents will aid in developing the mentioned plan, providing the DAO with experience, links to service providers, and a clear framework for executing the strategy.
To expand on the current board’s criteria, we highlight the transparency and reasonability for rejecting applicants:
All these points speak to the committee’s due diligence before approving or rejecting a Service Provider, which we highly value.
We hope they continue on the same path, prioritizing the security and liquidity of the invested assets.
Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to distribute their votes in the following way:
New Protocol and Ideas: 75% to Saurabh & Shogun - 25% to Castle Labs - NDW & Chilla
Gaming: 100% to Nikki Tran & Adam (Flook)
Dev Tooling on One and Stylus: 100% to Andreiv
Education, Community Growth, and Events: ABSTAINING here for COI reasons
Rationale
New Protocol and Ideas: Among the candidates, we were most impressed by Saurabh - Shogun and Castle Labs - NDW & Chilla. The former demonstrated solid experience leading grant programs in GMX and Questbook, making integrations within the Arbitrum ecosystem, and conducting data analysis and metrics for tools and support. As for the latter, their extensive experience in incentive design, evaluation of protocol applications in LTIPP/STIP, and research and advisory within Arbitrum’s ecosystem made them an attractive option as well.
Gaming: For the Gaming Domain, both candidates were really solid:
Nikki Tran & Adam (Flook): Nikki possesses experience in content creation, managing Web3 campaigns, and audience growth across multiple platforms, making her a perfect fit considering the restructuring and scope change in this domain. Adam, as Co-founder of Merlyn Labs, has deep knowledge of Web3 gaming and has managed the Gaming Domain in Arbitrum for 14 months. Together, they appear to be an ideal match for the domain’s needs.
Carlos Gonzalez & Alejandro Ochoa: Carlos has technical experience in blockchain gaming, L3 appchain development, and hackathons. Alejandro, a leader in the Gaming and Blockchain sector at Afirme, has expertise in strategic investments and prominent projects in LATAM, as well as connections with major Web2 publishers
Here, we faced a difficult decision, but several factors favored Nikki and Adam:
- With the change in the domain’s scope due to the GCP, Nikki’s profile, with experience in content creation within the gaming sector, can be of great help when it comes to user acquisition.
- Conversely, while Alejandro’s connections with major Web2 publishers are valuable, his expertise would be better leveraged within the GCP as example.
- Adam’s previous experience in the domain is a strong differentiator. We have firsthand knowledge of how the domain operates and he did a great job.
Dev Tooling on One and Stylus: In this particular domain, @andreiv’s presentation was very convincing. While it was also a difficult decision because we know Juandi from Seasons 1 and 2, we believe that Andreiv’s experience as a dev in events related to Stylus makes him a great fit for the position, potentially the candidate who can best understand initiatives like Stylus Sprint.
It’s not a minor detail since having context and understanding of the applications funded in that program makes it more feasible to establish synergies by prioritizing projects complementary to those developed in the Sprint.
The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
In light of our previous feedback, we appreciate all the clarifications provided by @Entropy as well as the amendments made to the proposal.
Regarding the incorporation of this committee into the OpCo in the future, we reiterate that this could be the new composition:
Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
In line with what other delegates have expressed, a budget of nearly a quarter of a million for maintaining a website seems excessive. Additionally, much of the information overlaps with existing platforms, making it essential for a Hub like this to be developed in collaboration with stakeholders who have a deep understanding of the DAO.
Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We don’t have much to add, as we have already provided feedback on this framework twice (first and second comments). We are pleased with the final result and appreciate @Entropy for considering our suggestions. The framework is solid, includes necessary mechanisms for amendments, aligns with traditional governance standards, and, most importantly, allows for matrix unification. This is crucial, as it is unlikely that a single matrix would encompass all of the DAO’s key objectives.
February 2025
Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
There is no reason to oppose this action. It is a logical step after having modernized the fee collection structure.
OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
Considering that the proposal has not undergone significant changes other than the adjustment of the amount to be requested based on the current state of the market, we maintain our position, previously justified in this comment.
Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
Considering that the proposal has not undergone significant changes, we maintain our position, previously justified in this comment.
However, we hope that the committee will consider our suggestions to improve the current reporting with small changes.
Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
First of all, and in line with our internal policy, we decided to abstain as we have economic interests at stake in this proposal.
That said, we would like to add our perspective regarding the discussions that have taken place in recent days:
-
It is true that the program currently saves the DAO from significant operational headaches. Considering that there were over 500 applicants in Season 2, we are certain it would be unfeasible for delegates to analyze, negotiate, and vote on each proposal individually. A few examples of this are the recent proposals in the forum requesting less than 50k, which have been “Sent to Questbook.” Another case is the dozens of Stylus-related proposals that met the same fate due to budgetary constraints.
-
However, the other side of the coin shows that this alone cannot be sufficient reason to rush or delay a third iteration. We understand @Entropy’s argument that the focus should be on significantly improving the program. Given this, building a proper Arbitrum-branded platform for managing grant programs is not something that can be done quickly. The downside of delaying the program itself to achieve this could be very costly for the DAO and for delegates in terms of operational overload (although it is also true that the DAO could simply tell applicants to “wait until the new program is ready,” but that would also be a suboptimal solution).
Perhaps the ideal approach would be that, if this proposal is approved on Tally, a parallel initiative should begin to develop this platform so that it can be used in the future for this program and others (such as the previously mentioned Stylus Sprint).
-
Regarding the alignment of the program with the DAO’s objectives: We believe that the program has demonstrated alignment, even though the objectives are not yet fully defined. The reality is that the DAO (and we dare say also AF/OCL) has shown interest in the verticals proposed by the Domains if we analyze each one:
-
Education, Community Growth, and Events:
- We have participated as a Domain Allocator in these last seasons and have maintained communication with AF on several occasions—either receiving feedback on specific proposals or avoiding overlaps with events already funded by AF.
- We have prioritized content creation related to the latest Arbitrum innovations, such as Stylus and BoLD.
-
Gaming:
- The necessary adjustments have been made to generate synergies rather than overlaps with the GCP.
- This is a good indicator that the Program Manager and other program participants seek to align with the current context of the DAO.
-
Dev Tooling:
- There have been high-quality proposals within Stylus Sprint that could have applied to this Domain, but they were not approved/funded due to budget constraints and because they were deemed a better fit for this program.
- This Domain could leverage approved Stylus Sprint proposals, becoming a tool to amplify the impact of these projects.
-
New Protocols and Ideas:
- This might be the Domain with the least direct relationship to other active DAO initiatives.
- However, it is the Domain with the highest level of innovation and has brought valuable governance tools, such as the Curia Dashboard. Considering this, it’s hard to imagine that it would not be aligned with the DAO’s needs and the broader ecosystem.
-
Orbit Chains:
- We also find it hard to believe that this is not aligned with Arbitrum’s priorities, given all the discussions about improving interoperability within the Arbitrum Stack.
- Also knowing that OCL has shown interest in @Maxlomu’s proposal, this Domain is likely a must-have in this program and in the DAO.
-
Final Thoughts
Yes, it is true—the program has a lot of room for improvement.
It is also true that it is difficult to improve it properly without taking a step back to review past performance and gather feedback on how to move forward. However, in this case, there were at least two or three months to propose improvements before the on-chain vote.
What cannot be ignored is that the program has proven to add value to the ecosystem.
This is not just another initiative that can be shut down overnight for the sake of “cleaning house.”
Despite our abstention, we hope this proposal will be approved.
We are more than willing to support @JoJo and other stakeholders in a parallel improvement process for the next iteration (or even for the second half of the program, if operationally viable).
We understand that the ARDC’s ongoing research into the program will provide valuable insights on what can be improved and what aspects of the program are already strong.
Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
As members of the committee, we agree with the recommendation made, although it means almost doubling the budget originally allocated, the reality is that these proposals deserve to be funded by the DAO, just as we believe that the DAO can benefit from the fact that these promising projects/applicants use Stylus.
March 2025
Arbitrum Audit Program
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
Although this is our first time joining the discussion, we wanted to share some thoughts on the process this proposal has gone through.
At the beginning, we must admit there was quite a bit of confusion, as it was evident that there were frictions between the ADPC and the AF. Given how important this proposal is for the ecosystem, we believe this “transition” could have been handled under better conditions.
Having said that, we understand that the AF wants to take on a more active role in the DAO, and we actually welcome this decision, knowing that it’s the most Arbitrum-aligned entity that can bring significant value both to various initiatives and to decision-making.
However, it is important to mention that, despite this new approach, the DAO will still need Service Providers and other contributors to help achieve the objectives set through the S.O.S. That is why we emphasize the importance of ensuring that processes like this one are carried out in a structured and orderly manner. Otherwise, not only does it create uncertainty for potential SPs, but it also fosters an environment that can become toxic—not just in terms of governance dynamics but also for conducting business.
Regarding the program itself, we align with @krst’s perspective: the AF should meet the same standards required of any SP, as this is an initiative funded by the DAO. At the same time, we view the adjustments made after the initial feedback phase positively. In this regard, we believe the suggestions from various delegates have been valuable in improving this proposal and giving the DAO greater oversight over its execution.
TMC Stablecoin Recommendation
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
In this case, we agree with the general idea and appreciate that more protocols have been incorporated into the strategies by Karpatkey and Avantgarde. We recognize that there is now a considerable difference between what Gauntlet is offering for free and what the other providers are proposing.
For this reason, we are reiterating our previous vote from the last Snapshot, supporting the deployment of this strategy.
TMC ARB Recommendation
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “YES, Deploy ARB Strategy” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
Regarding this recommendation, we do not align with the committee’s perspective. While we understand that covered calls may introduce certain concerns and additional complexity, we want to highlight this comment:
Given the current circumstances, there is a high probability that the stablecoin strategy will be executed at a lower price range than what could be achieved through the execution of an options strategy. This implies that the final capital obtained from the ARB strategy could be significantly higher than that of the stablecoin strategy.
GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “For, Deploy Capital” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We would like to start by noting a growing tendency within the DAO to address multiple objectives within a single initiative, even when the primary goal is not directly related to the secondary ones. In this particular case, the main objective was to generate returns on the treasury’s idle ETH. However, the discussion shifted toward supporting Arbitrum builders, despite the existence of several other initiatives already focused on that purpose.
That being said, we appreciate the efforts made to incorporate community feedback regarding the inclusion of Arbitrum-native protocols in the strategy.
We believe the selection is reasonable and aligns with the principle of “security first.” Therefore, we support this initiative.
OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to split our voting power among the following candidates:
- 25% to A.J. Warner
- 25% to Patrick McCorry
- 50% to Pedro Breuer
Rationale
As an important note, we believe the outcome of the vote shifted when one of the candidates acquired LobbyFi’s 20 million VP.
From that moment on, the election moved from a process of “voting for the candidate we believe is best prepared for the role” to “voting strategically to ensure the feasibility of the OpCo.” In this context, we believe most delegates are concentrating their votes on certain candidates to ensure they surpass the 20M threshold. We are no exception; as to prevent further vote dispersion, we have decided to cast votes for only three candidates. This is also why we are writing a rationale in advance for a shuttered vote.
OpCo is undoubtedly one of the most significant experiments in the DAO’s history, and its success would drive Arbitrum’s success. This entity is perfectly positioned to handle both operational tasks and service provider procurement, alleviating pressure from both the AF and delegates when making decisions. For this reason, the board must consist of individuals who are as aligned with Arbitrum as possible and who genuinely represent the diverse stakeholders within this community.
Regarding AJ and Patrick, it is clear that this entity will require initial support from OCL and AF to shape its structure. In this regard, we believe both candidates are 100% Arbitrum-aligned, which gives us confidence that they will do everything possible to ensure this effort is not in vain.
It is important to highlight that one of the OAT’s responsibilities is to coordinate with these entities to align around the Arbitrum ecosystem objectives:
Furthermore, once the foundational structure of the OpCo is established, the OAT will have authority over service provider and individual contributor contracts:
This implies substantial power over the vast majority of initiatives (if not all), which, in our view, should be more balanced in favor of independent delegates who are not directly involved in those initiatives. This is why we advocate for a different OAT composition in the second year, as it is well known that the Arbitrum Foundation has been involved in multiple initiatives and even acts as a Service Provider to the DAO through the Arbitrum Audit Program.
Regarding Pedro, it is not only about his background but also about having had the opportunity to meet him personally, observe his contributions as a delegate for over a year, and recognize that he has no biases or conflicts of interest beyond his role in the DIP. We believe he is the best-positioned candidate to represent the DAO’s interests.
As we have mentioned before, it is expected that AF and OCL will be part of the committee in the first year. While these entities and delegates are all supposed to be on the same team—since we all want Arbitrum to succeed—it is crucial that the third member is someone sufficiently critical and independent to represent the delegates within this committee faithfully.
ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We feel that this proposal is somewhat disconnected from the discussions that have taken place over the past few months as part of the detox process. While it is true that the proponents have presented their case during calls, we believe there are certain pre-existing issues that remain unresolved by this proposal.
In this regard, we align with other delegates in recognizing the difficulty of evaluating a wide variety of strategies, making it evident that a program with clearer guidelines for applicants is needed.
We see value in Patterns as part of a broader program that aligns with the DAO’s overall objectives and strategy. Additionally, we believe that any future incentive program should at least consider encouraging projects to invest more in off-chain marketing efforts to expand the pie, as it is clear that current programs tend to attract Web3-native users seeking yields rather than onboarding new users.