I’m voting against just to bring the discussion and voting on the new post in the proper “proposals” category.
Voting against as others. Let’s follow the proper formal path, also maybe in the next discussion we might be able to start to identify what we want to specifically publish as metadata even before going to tally.
1 Like
Likewise, will be voting against for process reasons.
1 Like
The proposal did not follow the standardized process, which is why I decided against it. However, I am open to reviewing it again if it follows the usual procedures.
1 Like
Voting against for the same reason as explained above.
I think it would be better to move the proposal instead of cloning it, otherwise, opinions, feedback, and past contributions will be segmented. Each proposal should have only one thread where it’s being discussed. It’s difficult enough as it is to track everything and read all comments, I think cloning a proposal to a new category while leaving the other as a record makes it harder
3 Likes
I’m not very familiar with the technical details, but based on the data and content presented in this proposal, achieving its goals seems essential for the long-term development of Arbitrum DAO. The proposal appears beneficial without incurring additional costs, so I fully support it.
1 Like
I am voting AGAINST this proposal for the reasons stated by others above. I believe it is crucial to build a collective awareness of the importance of respecting established processes
1 Like
It’s a good idea to write the DAO information to daoURI.
But I have a question about entering the information.
It’s good that someone is willing to enter the data for free now, but who will be responsible for entering the data into the blockchain? - it costs money and time.
I think it would be valuable to give a little training session or at least presentation on the DAOs process in the next GovHack. To us, the process after the GovHack was also pretty unclear, but we had asked several people and it became clear that it needed to be reposted and also reworked a bit to fit the standard’s around the DAO’s process.
In hindsight, I would also say that GovHack should highlight how the DAO currently looks like and works. As I personally see it right now, there is a few that can just turn the vote around even though they might not have read the full proposal, or just might not spend time on it, but just have voting power or know the teams behind the proposals already. So being as precise and short and visual as possible in the proposal, working out graphics presenting proposals just like to VCs that spend 30 seconds on a proposal might help to bring a proposal forward, or at least increase the likelihood that some delegates look at it and vote accordingly on Snapshot later on.
3 Likes
hey @cp0x, good question! As mentioned in the updated proposal, we suggest hosting the daoURI on Github, and not IPFS.
For example, if the daoURI is hosted at: https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance/tree/main/daoURI, we would only need to publish it onchain once… Any changes to the data can be made directly to the GitHub file without affecting the URI, thus avoiding the need for further onchain updates.
1 Like
For this cycle and vote, we are not in favor due to not following the governance timelines, however, we don’t think this should/would disqualify them for a resubmission if done correctly.
In this resubmission case, we would be generally in favor of a lot of these policies. Something like this is needed and should hopefully provide a nice decentralized and governance controlled information center for the DAO.
1 Like
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will be voting FOR this proposal.
The initiative has been discussed for some time, and we are happy to support it at Snapshot despite some minor process inconsistencies.
We implemented the daoURL at Treasure and found @amanwithwings helpful and responsive. We are supportive of this initiative moving forward.
1 Like
We will be voting against this proposal as it should follow the proper formal process.
1 Like
Thank you for all the hard work put into this proposal. While we agree with the idea behind this implementation, not following proper governance procedures is not acceptable in this context.
1 Like
Directionally aligned on this but I agree with others that the path to voting hasn’t been what we need. Looking forward to having something like this in the future.
1 Like
We are generally very supportive of this proposal, particularly its potential to improve the user experience for both DAO operators and Arbitrum users. Enhancing the usability and accessibility of our governance processes is a step in the right direction.
Given that this proposal involves a technical implementation, we would like to see input from security service providers, whether they are part of the ARDC or external experts. Their assessments will be crucial in ensuring this integration is secure and aligns with the best practices for our ecosystem.
Additionally, while we recognize some errors in the formal process leading up to this proposal, we are willing to look past these in the interest of practicality. What matters most is the outcome and the value this initiative could bring to the Arbitrum DAO.
1 Like
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot because of the process issue.
The governance process should be clearly defined in the governance document and widely known especially to proposal creators (delegate with enough VPs to create proposals) who should be guardians of enforcing the guidance defined in the governance document.
1 Like
I voted ABSTAIN on this proposal due to procedural concerns. I will vote FOR it when it is created again on Snapshot.
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
While SEEDGov has consistently upheld the importance of respecting due process and voiced our concerns when proposers have rushed to submit votes prematurely, in this particular situation, we do not believe it justifies voting against a temperature check simply because the submission was placed in the wrong section of the forum.
Now, the proposal in question addresses an existing problem, is pre-funded by a grant from the foundation, and incorporates highly useful tools for research and data mining.
We regret that this mistake occurred as we see significant value in this initiative and we hope that if it’s not approved the proposer persists with the proposal.
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’ll be voting FOR this proposal during temp-check.
We see the value of incorporating the daoURI in Arbitrum’s governance to have a programmatically accessible single source of DAO information and the fact that there is no overhead for the DAO, in terms of effort or money required, makes the decision a no-brainer. Furthermore, we’re comfortable knowing that most governance tooling platforms are already members of DAOstar so adopting the daoURI will give them an easy path to metadata updates.
When it comes to the two outlined approaches, we believe the path of least resistance (setting a new ‘daoURI’ txt record on arbitrumfoundation.eth) to be the most prudent one to follow at this time. This way, the implementation will be easier, and we’ll have the flexibility to make changes without needing a governance vote. At a later date, we can revisit the topic and discuss setting the DAO’s timelock as the manager.
2 Likes