Temperature Check: Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain

[JoJo]

Voting FOR on this initiative.

One of the biggest strong point of Arbitrum is the tech stack, and we should leverage it as much as we can.

While some, as we discussed in calls, believe we should keep it more focused on the Eth world, there is a pragmatic consideration to do: if we don’t do it, someone else will. And, likely, we are going in a world in which every dapp might just have his own chain; how big could be the network effect of having Arbitrum tech being the engine of 90% of the L2s and L3s in the world?

Still think we need to refine a bit the proposal. Specifically, we need to be able to monitor and analyse returns over time from specific chains, to understand where the effort should be put BD wise. We need to also understand the cost that offchain labs might have in term of supporting all of these chains, and in general manage the economy at scale. There is also potentially a merit in being able at some point to revise the numbers proposed above (10%) accordingly to business needs.

Finally, since this won’t happen in a short period, the more we go “outside” of the ethereum world, the more we should be aware of the possibility to just have a sentiment checks to understand if we are still going in a direction that is aligned with the vision of the dao.

[WinVerse]

DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

We are generally supportive of this proposal to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain. It is a necessary step for further ecosystem growth.

[krst]

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 AGAINST this proposal and encourage delegates who voted in favor of it to reconsider their position.

First of all, we’d like to point out that we wouldn’t need to have this discussion if the Arbitrum license was simply free and permissionless. If the goal is to spread Arbitrum technology, then this would probably be the best course of action. If we were discussing opening the license, then we would be supportive, but that’s not what we’re discussing right now.

We believe that extending the Arbitrum Expansion Program to non-Ethereum chains is a huge mistake. Not only is it a distraction from building on and growing Ethereum, but it potentially supports Ethereum’s direct competitors, including centralized and permissioned ones.

Arbitrum invested immense amounts of time and resources to build permissionless fraud proofs with BoLD, and we are paying millions in ETH to settle transactions on the mainnet for a reason. Now, if this proposal passes, we’re sending a signal that all of this is unnecessary as, apparently, chains can settle, for example, to Binance Smart Chain, and they could even get Arbitrum Foundation’s support to do so. What should we do that for? For some doubtful future income from sequencer fees? We should be working on converting users from those other chains, not incentivizing them to go there.

Furthermore, this is just an unnecessary distraction. We have a lot to do in Ethereum alone, and we should not spread ourselves thin trying to build our presence in other ecosystems. Arbitrum has a very strong position as an Ethereum L2, and in our opinion, the DAO and the Foundation should focus on using this advantage instead of building from scratch elsewhere.

We assume that if we change the expansion program to allow deployments of Orbit chains on any blockchain, the Foundation will be involved in managing these Orbit chains (at least for validating and collecting revenue). Consequently, the Foundation would then, at one point, probably turn to the DAO for additional support, be it in terms of money or other resources. We do not want to allocate time and/or resources to such deployments as we feel it’s not prudent to do so.

Lastly, we don’t agree that we should try to hedge the risk of Ethereum losing its position to other chains. In our view, Ethereum is our best bet right now to ensure that the future of finance is built on a truly decentralized, permissionless, trustless, credibly neutral layer. If, instead, it ends up being built on Binance Smart Chain or something similar, then it doesn’t matter if Arbitrum secures its’ position there, as that would be a case of winning a battle but losing the war.

[paulofonseca]

finally someone said it! thank you @krst and @Sinkas!

I just want to remind everyone that “Ethereum-Aligned” is the first community value, in the constitution of the Arbitrum DAO.

[BlockworksResearch]

Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

We view this step as progress toward the expansion of the DAO and the Arbitrum Network. Allowing orbit chains to deploy on multiple networks could increase the number of deployments which subsequently increases the DAO’s revenue. We can leverage our tech stack to achieve greater contributions outside of Ethereum. This could also bring an advantage of Arbitrum’s horizontal scaling solution against its competitors. Currently, there are 4 horizontal L3 ecosystems, the Superchain (Optimism), Hyperchain (zkSync), AggLayer (Polygon), and Arbitrum’s Orbit chains. If we want to get ahead of those already building L3 ecosystems, we need to take additional risks, and one might be allowing orbit chains to branch outside the Ethereum L1. Arbitrum already hosts a large number of orbit chains, currently standing at around 50-53 orbit chains in development/launched. This puts Arbitrum ahead of zkSync and Polygon in terms of acquisition, but behind Optimism. We can allow for greater ecosystem development if we open the horizon.

[Curia]

We agree with @krst and @paulofonseca opinions and believe that Arbitrum should remain aligned with the values of the Ethereum community. It is crucial to focus on building and growing within the Ethereum ecosystem rather than diverting resources and attention to other blockchains. Supporting Ethereum ensures that we contribute to a truly decentralized, permissionless, and trustless future of finance.

[cliffton.eth]

Thank you everyone for your comments and vote on the temperature check.

There has been a typo on the snapshot proposal - to clarify, the Arbitrum Foundation will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP. Therefore, if the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL quorum isn’t achieved, the default will be to keep the Arbitrum Expansion Program as it is, and not change anything.

The red box highlighted on snapshot in the screenshot below should be NON-CONSTITUTIONAL instead of constitutional. We apologize for this mistake.

[Camelot]

Camelot is voting FOR the proposal of the Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow the deployment of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.

While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.

We also believe that if Arbitrum technology becomes the most widely used in rollups, we will not only achieve greater alignment in mindshare but also experience positive secondary effects. These include increasing the number of developers and protocols that have a direct route into the Arbitrum ecosystem, for example to leverage Stylus and other features.

However, our vote is specific to the license and basis the assumption that the current roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remain unchanged. At the current time, we would like to make it clear that whilst we are in favour of broadening the license use, we oppose that this comes at the expense of the current Ethereum-centric roadmap for Arbitrum. If this vote were to impact the current scope of development work we would appreciate insight and visibility from the Foundation and/or OCL respectively.

[ocandocrypto]

I voted AGAINST this proposal.

I first heard about Arbitrum during Devcon, where it was introduced with a strong narrative centered on Ethereum scalability. I firmly believe that we should continue to follow this narrative rooted in settlement. Moving away from it could be complex in the long term, but I say this from my perspective as a web3 citizen aligned with the Ethereum journey.

Strategically speaking, as a DAO member, I understand that with Stylus as a language and Orbit as infrastructure, multiple settlements could exist beneath without necessarily compromising our core values and execution approach.

However, this brings new challenges, such as attracting new developers, encouraging projects to build on Arbitrum, and establishing a clear vision for growth that aligns everyone toward a common goal.

Genuinely, I don’t see that alignment yet, so my vote remains firmly in favor of staying true to Ethereum’s principles—without falling into maximalism, of course.

Looking ahead, if this proposal passes on-chain, I’d like to contribute more from a growth perspective to help drive the development of this Orbit ecosystem. Of course, I’d ensure that our communication keeps the values that initially brought us all together at the forefront.

[Tane]

We vote FOR the proposal.

Economically and practically, allowing new Orbit chains on any blockchain that demand the technology built by OCL and managed by the Foundation and DAO makes sense. We believe it’s beneficial especially for more Stylus uses, which will lead to the world where developers can easily deploy their applications on the established environment.

However, since Arbitrum is Ethereum-aligned as clearly stated as its first community value, the Foundation and OCL should still prioritize the development and integration with the chains that are settled on Ethereum L1. Of course, there are various perspectives when it comes to defining “Ethereum-aligned” but settling on Ethereum L1 should be the most important value that “Ethereum” provides and it’s still valued in the decision making process by the Arbitrum members.

[AbdullahUmar]

Below are the opinions of the UADP:

We are in support of expanding the deployment of Orbit chains to alternative networks. This is an opportunity for Arbitrum to increase its presence on numerous other ecosystems, while simultaneously attaining more sources of revenue. The success of a couple of these new Orbit chains could amount to decent inflows–although this is currently a premature assumption.

Yes, Arbitrum is Eth-aligned, but broadening the use of Orbit does not necessarily cannibalize the success of the EVM. It’s not like restricting Orbit development to Eth is materially increasing the competitive moat for Ethereum. The signaling here is simply that using Arbitrum’s technology is a ubiquitous resource, regardless where you decide to build–and for using this framework, you pay Arbitrum a cut. Such openness is the case with various other competitors. If the magnitude of pull that Orbit technology had towards drawing builders to Ethereum, then this would be a different conversation. As it currently stands, the impact Orbit has in terms of bringing value to Ethereum is not significant enough to justify forgoing development on alternative networks. We stand by this perspective as long as the Arb Foundation doesn’t largely divert their attention and resources to helping devs spin up Orbit chains on other networks. If the overhead related to expansion is too large, which the AF should be transparent about, then the DAO should revisit this topic.

[mcfly]

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal to allow Arbitrum Expansion Program deployments on any blockchain.

The Arbitrum Foundation should concentrate on strengthening Ethereum’s ecosystem. By limiting Orbit chains to Ethereum-derived security, we incentivize developers to build on and enhance the network that made Arbitrum possible. This focused approach ensures Arbitrum gives back to its roots while fostering a robust, interconnected Ethereum ecosystem.

[Griff]

Voting For

Voting for opens up:

• More use cases
• More developers
• More funds directed to the DAO

Voting against, is a virtue signal at our own expense, don’t get me wrong, we should prioritize our work so that we are scaling ethereum, I organized the first ethereum conference in 2018 (ScalingNow), I am here to help scale ethereum, but I also value inclusion and I trust OCL and the Foundation to prioritize Ethereum focused projects.

[Bob-Rossi]

After a lot of back and forth on this one, I will be voting “For” this proposal.

Realistically whether Arbitrum gets involved or not, some version of rollups will be deployed on non-Ethereum chains. So while I strongly value the Ethereum relationship, Arbitrum will be shooting itself in the foot if it fails to expand in this way. I also am hopefully this type of collaboration can lead to some really powerful technical advancements in the future.

I’ll caution that this has the huge potential to take time away from Ethereum specific development. I think it is important that these outside projects don’t materially take away from what’s being built on Ethereum as it still is the #1 smart contract network.

[paulofonseca]

I’ve been thinking about this for the past 2 days… agonizing over it really… and taking the risk of sounding really stupid, paranoid and even for sure indulging in some virtue signaling (which honestly, these are all “qualities” I know I have), here goes my current thinking on it:

it seems to me, that this proposal is some kind of trojan horse

why? well…

passing this proposal, like this, gives the still to be defined Arbitrum Developer Guild 20% of the 10% of the sequencer fees in these other blockchains, and I guess that this Arbitrum Developer Guild will then distribute that money in some still to be determined way that involves “the funds being appropriately distributed amongst its members” and by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone? Offchain Labs? the Arbitrum Foundation? idfk…

The main problem is that this basically sounds like breaking the original promise of Arbitrum, where all of the fees will go to the Arbitrum DAO. It’s obviously not that simple, but that’s roughly the original intent of Arbitrum as an Ethereum L2 governed by a DAO, right? That’s what makes us different from… you know… the other Ethereum L2s, right?
See here for more details on the current fee distribution. There is no other precedent of sharing fees to any other entity other than the Arbitrum DAO, except for 20% of the L2 Base Fee in Arbitrum Nova, that goes “to parties running Nova Validators / the DAC”.

so… passing this proposal, this specific snapshot proposal that ends today, this offchain, non-constitutional quorum threshold bound, Arbitrum Foundation authored proposal… opens the door, and gives legitimacy, to change where the fees go… in ALL other blockchains that are not Ethereum… right?

keep in mind that, as far as I’m aware, the original Arbitrum Expansion Program was not voted on by the Arbitrum DAO. So as of today, it has no legitimacy whatsoever.
So, now… to come up with this proposal, calling it a “change” to a non legitimized program that the Arbitrum Foundation announced in January in a forum post that had literally zero feedback from delegates on it… is kinda weird, no?

Even more, to make it an offchain only vote, and bound to the lowest non-constitutional quorum threshold… even weirder…

Am I the crazy one here? I’m fully aware that I’m sounding like this guy… so please… tell me what I’m missing in here… I really hope I’m missing something here… please… I beg you…

and also… of course… this proposal passing gives legitimacy to the possibility that Arbitrum could stop being the Ethereum L2 that it is, and becoming something else… something we still don’t know what it is, how much effort it’s gonna take, how much of a priority it’s gonna be for OCL and the Foundation, etc, etc…

as I said before, in my opinion, this proposal violates the first community value in our constitution, of being “Ethereum-aligned”. and the more I look into this proposal… the weirder it gets.

this proposal should not pass. if it passes, it will change the direction of Arbitrum substantially.

[coinflip]

I am voting ‘FOR’ this proposal as it advances the adoption of the Arbitrum VM through a wider installed base and improves the chances of us being positioned as the preferred execution and rollup environment for web3. There are valid concerns about the governance of the Arbitrum Expansion Program and potential open sourcing of Orbit, while we should discuss those this proposal should be approved on its own merits.

Arbitrum One is ethereum’s largest scaling environment and the strongest asset of the DAO, don’t think there is much doubt that we are deeply ETH aligned but it doesn’t mean we need to ETH maximalists to the detriment of the wider adoption that grows Arbitrum and eventually Arbitrum One (which settles on Ethereum) as our primary hub.

Looking ahead, Arbitrum One could serve as the central hub connecting Ethereum with various chains using Orbit, whether they settle on Arbitrum One, ethereum, other Ethereum L2s, different L1s, or as standalone L1s. The form that this connection, or light interop happens with Arbitrum One such as share sequencers or other solutions are not fully developed but having a common execution environment with these chains and who rely on us for further development of this VM positions us for that future.

[Djinn]

Initially voted abstain as there were many key questions brought up during discussions with delegates that I believe require more discovery - among those how we align this expansion program with a broader vision/strategy.

Changed my vote to FOR to indicate I do support this exploration and this may have some valuable unlocks to facilitate growth / market share.

[jameskbh]

Voted “FOR” in this proposal, as it is mandatory to enable Orbit on other chains. Even if the future is not Multichain, we need to be attentive to other options and make sure that Arbitrum will be well-placed.

That doesn’t mean that our focus should move away from on Ethereum, but pragmatism is always needed when building the future.

[swmartin]

This (camelot reply qouted below) echoes my personal view points. L2s WILL be built on alternative settlement layers with or without Arbitrum’s tech stack. The question becomes whether Arbitrum wants to cede marketshare to competing solutions with no value capture for our DAO (which IS Ethereum aligned, and can redirect accrued revenue to initiatives that support Ethereum’s future), or if we want to spread our values&tech to other chains while growing the network of users, developers, applications, etc. familiar with an Ethereum aligned tech stack.

The key here is to ensure that these chains have a reason to migrate to Ethereum after launching, which in my opinion comes down to seamless interoperability between Ethereum settled Orbit chains, access to ARB incentives/grants programs/foundation/OCL support, infra for wallet providers, RPCs and Indexers, etc. The confident move here is to let them launch non-ethereum settled Orbit chains, but make our ecosystem so good that the migration back becomes inevitable.

@Camelot

Camelot is voting FOR the proposal of the Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow the deployment of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.

While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.

We also believe that if Arbitrum technology becomes the most widely used in rollups, we will not only achieve greater alignment in mindshare but also experience positive secondary effects. These include increasing the number of developers and protocols that have a direct route into the Arbitrum ecosystem, for example to leverage Stylus and other features.

However, our vote is specific to the license and basis the assumption that the current roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remain unchanged. At the current time, we would like to make it clear that whilst we are in favour of broadening the license use, we oppose that this comes at the expense of the current Ethereum-centric roadmap for Arbitrum. If this vote were to impact the current scope of development work we would appreciate insight and visibility from the Foundation and/or OCL respectively.

[Sooryavanshi]

Market Share and Value Capture:

By expanding the Orbit license, Arbitrum can solidify its market share in alternative settlement layers and redirect value towards the Ethereum-aligned DAO.

Ethereum Alignment and Migration:

The response underscores the importance of maintaining alignment with Ethereum and incentivizing chains to migrate back to it. This can be achieved through seamless interoperability, access to ARB incentives, and fostering a robust ecosystem.

Pragmatic Approach:

Camelot recognizes that rollups are likely to be deployed on non-Ethereum chains, regardless of Orbit’s involvement. Allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets can ultimately channel value back to the Ethereum-aligned DAO.

Mindshare and Secondary Effects:

The response highlights the potential benefits of widespread Arbitrum technology adoption, including increased mindshare and positive secondary effects, such as attracting more developers and protocols to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Roadmap and Resources:

Camelot’s support is contingent on the current Ethereum-centric roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remaining unchanged. They oppose any impact on the current scope of development work and request transparency from the Foundation and/or OCL if any changes occur.