The details in the post are great communication and we appreciate the members putting this on the forums for our attention. On behalf of the UADP, we are fully in support of this and see no reason or issues as to why this should be turned down. If anything, are votes like this needed? or more of a “hats off” to the DAO.
1 Like
Work was done, no reason not to pay. Voting “For”
1 Like
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We vote in favour of this proposal.
The work done by the advisors was really helpful in making the process smooth and efficient. The Program Manager did a great job in coordinating everything, which kept things on track.
Since the funds were already approved, it’s easy to vote in favor of this proposal.
1 Like
For!
The work has been done well, the budget is detailed and reasonable.
1 Like
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage on Snapshot. The budget is reasonable relative to the work involved. In the future, funding for operations associated with a proposal should be included and approved in the original proposal. This should not require a follow-up vote after the work is completed.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
Even though we abstained from the STIP Bridge proposal on Tally, we understand that this vote is about the use of funds that were earmarked for the operational expenses of the STIP Bridge proposal, which passed the onchain vote successfully. As a result, and given that the responsibilities outlined in the original STIP Bridge proposal were carried out, we’re voting in favor of the Snapshot to utilize the funds for the operational expenses.
1 Like
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.
We vote For the proposal on Snapshot.
The budget was already approved and the distributions of it proposed by Alex makes sense, thus no reason to be against it. We appreciate all the contributors who are experienced in the process of LTIPP and other initiatives are compensated for their work for STIP-Bridge operations.
I’m voting FOR this proposal
It guarantees fair compensation for everyone involved in the STIP Bridge program. The necessary funds have already been approved, so this proposal isn’t requesting additional money; it’s simply about compensating those who contributed to its success.
I am in favor of the proposal. I have joined their dedicated Discord Channel to learn about and monitor the consulting process, as well as the feedback provided by advisors, including @SEEDGov, @JoJo, and @CastleCapital. The requested amount is fair.
DAOplomats is voting in favor on Snapshot.
This compensation is for work already completed and with the budget already approved during the onchain vote, we see no reason not to go ahead with this.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal:
I can be short and sweet here: We will vote in favor (FOR) of this proposal given that we deem it fair compensation for the amount of time and effort put in.
As the proposer of this vote I am voting abstain on this.
gm, voting FOR.
I wasn’t supportive of the STIP-Bridge proposal but recognizing the value of the work provided by the coordinators and advisors.
1 Like
Voted FOR. This work was not on the original scope for the LTIP members, and the additional payment is totally justified.
The results are in for the STIP-Bridge Operational Budget off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
Sorry for belated response.
Before we start, we want to thank you for submitting this proposal. The tasks and costs are clearly laid out. Since the work is already completed and no additional funding is being requested, we voted “FOR” this proposal with confidence.
1 Like