TempeTechie.eth Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
1

Hi everyone, this is my (Tempe Techie) delegate communication thread.

Basic info:

About me:
I am a software developer with over 10 years of professional experience. In the past 4 years I have been full-time in web3 development, using mainly Solidity (for smart contracts) and JavaScript/Vue on the frontend.

My focus is mainly on non-financial usecases of crypto, especially Web3 Social (e.g. social networks, chats etc.). I think tools which enable decentralized communication and governance are of major importance.

Some of the tools I’ve built include the Arbitrum Delegate Frame on Farcaster, which allows Farcaster users to check who their delegate is, and set a new delegate if needed. Another tool is called Iggy and it’s a Web3 Social framework, sort of like “wordpress” for web3 social.

I am an active voter in the Arbitrum DAO. I support proposals which are geared towards decentralization, censorship-resistance, and better communication & governance.

I often attend Ethereum conferences (Devcon, DevConnect, ETH Prague etc.) so you can meet me there and discuss everything related Arbitrum and Web3 Social.

1 Like
2

NOVEMBER 2024

Snapshot:

Snapshot Proposal: Adopt a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalize Operations
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I vote FOR the proposal. I don’t see any issues with it, and I believe it’s good for the DAO.

As for the Shielded Vote that olimpio mentioned, I think the will of the voters was clear - they support the shielded vote (56.69% approval). The difference in interpretation of this vote may arise from whether you’re more familiar with the “first-past-the-post” voting system or with the “proportional” voting system. Personally, I believe the proportional system better represents the will of the voters, which means it’s fair to sum up the total votes in favor of the shielded vote.

Snapshot Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I am generally in favour of the idea of the proposal, but I agree with Tekr0x.eth that we should see a more precise plan (or guardrails) for selling ARB for stablecoins.

One idea is to have a daily limit (as percentage of ARB volume) on ARBs sold. Another is to perhaps also sell part of ETH, not just ARB. And also to extend the timeline of selling ARB (3 months may be too short if we don’t want to impact the price too much).

I also echo 404DAO’s suggestion of having only one committee instead of two.

That said, I’m voting FOR the proposal in the Snapshot voting. But I’d need the changes I mentioned (especially the guardrails for selling ARB) to be implemented in the proposal before supporting it in the Tally vote.

+an update after I asked a question on the Governance Call:

Updating my thoughts based on the feedback by Sam Martin on today’s Governance call.

As per Sam, Entropy will not define in the Tally proposal how exactly ARB will be liquidated for stablecoins. Instead, this will be a task for the TMC committee after (if) the Tally vote passes.

The good thing is that TMC will put their plan of ARB liquidation on the Snapshot vote, so if DAO members don’t agree with it, ARB will not get liquidated in that way.

To me, this is sufficient enough, so I plan to vote FOR the proposal on Tally.

Snapshot proposal: Restitution For Extensively Delayed ArbitrumDAO Minigrant Winners
Voted: AGAINST
Reasoning (link):

Too long delay in ARB payouts is very unfortunate and understandably painful for recipients. But the grant rules were clear about the payment being in ARB tokens. As chamadao said, the proposed restitution would create a dangerous precedent. For that reason, I vote against the proposal.

Snapshot proposal: Hackathon Continuation Program
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR the proposal. I think it’s good to experiment with a program that helps the best hackathon projects grow and succeed even after the hackathon is over.

If this program proves to be successful, it would make sense to do a v2 of the program, but this time perhaps including finalists from past ETHGlobal hackathons. This would create a larger pool of high-quality projects and bring promising teams and developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Tally:

Tally Proposal: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally, especially based on how well ARDC v1 performed with the STIP analysis. The proposed budget is the lowest among the choices that were listed in Snapshot, but I’m sure the DAO could provide some additional funds (through a new proposal) if the need for that will arise.

Tally Proposal: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it provides a better system of organizing and funding DAO-related events.

As for whether to organize an Arbitrum-specific event not attached to any other conference, I think this sounds better on paper than in reality (at this point). I see for myself that when I travel to attend a crypto event, I choose to attend large conferences with many (side) events rather than to attend a smaller specific event with no other events around it (because it’s easier to justify the personal travel cost of attending a larger conference with side events). In the future, when the Arbitrum community grows, it could have its own major conference, but for now, let’s stick with side events attached to some major conference (e.g. an Ethereum conference or a non-crypto conference like krst from L2Beat proposed).

Governance calls in November:

  • I attended the bi-weekly Arbitrum governance call on 19 November 2024.
  • I did not attend the previous call on 5 November due to traveling to Thailand for Devcon 2024.
3

SNAPSHOT (DECEMBER 2024):

Snapshot proposal: [Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum?
Voted: FOR (Arbitrum + 2 others)
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting “FOR + two others” the proposal because we truly lack a deeper understanding of how developers see Arbitrum and building on it. While I am one of these developers, I’d like to see how others think about it and how their views differ from mine.

Danielo, does the “+ two others (SOL & OP)” include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.

Snapshot proposal: Designing and operating the reporting and information function
Voted: ABSTAIN (because the proposal author announced it’s cancelled)
Reasoning (link):

Overall I like the idea, but as many others have mentioned the main concern is the size of the budget. Since the proposal is supposed to be cancelled (as mentioned in the governance call), I voted abstain.

Snapshot proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
Voted: FOR (Renew with 5 domains)
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot, more precisely the option “Renew with 5 domains”.

When it comes to attracting developers to apply for the grant, I suggest also taking a look at past ETH Global hackathon winners. Some gems may be hiding there, even if they deployed their projects on another chain (this grant can get them to move to Arbitrum).

Snapshot proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. V1 was a pilot project, so it makes sense to do a V2 based on everything that the proposal team learned from V1. After V2 is completed and evaluation done, we’ll have a better picture whether such program works and perhaps repeat it in the future.

Snapshot Elections:

I voted in all these 4 elections, but since votes are confidential, I won’t share how I voted until the voting is over.

Reasoning (link):

I went through all applications and gave each candidate a 1-10 score (which was then automatically translated into percentages). Because the vote is shielded, I will reveal my choices after the election is over, so that I don’t impact how other people vote.

EDIT (after voting ended):

I’ve read through all applications and graded candidates with a score 1-10 based on my subjective opinion. The reason I did that instead of just choosing one or two candidates is that I believe all candidates bring something valuable to the table, which is why I prefer proportional voting instead of “winner-takes-all” approach.

Here is my vote reveal:

Supervisory Council Election: 12.24% for Frisson (Comm Role), 14.29% for JuanRah + AlexLumley (Comm Role), 14.29% for Jameskbh (Comm Role), 16.33% for Entropy Adv. + Tamara (Op Role) , 14.29% for Pedro Breuer (Comm Role) , 12.24% for Violet Benson (Comm Role) , 16.33% for ZER8 (Comm Role).

Research Election: 17.07% for Revelo Intel, 17.07% for PYOR Research, 19.51% for The Block Research, 21.95% for Llama Research & Castle Capital, 24.39% for Blockworks Advisory.

Risk Election: 20.51% for Vending Machine, 23.08% for TAU Labs, 15.38% for Jupiter Block, 17.95% for DeFiSafety, 23.08% for Nethermind.

In the Security Election I decided to give 100% of my vote to one candidate, OpenZeppelin, because of its lengthy presence in the crypto world; commitment to open source development via smart contract templates, which increase overall security in the space (and they do it free of charge); extensive experience in auditing; and last but not least, their past work and experience as Security Member of the ARDC.

Snapshot proposal: Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I vote FOR the proposal. Every organization needs clear vision and mission statements which serve as guiding stars for everything that we do in the DAO. And we also need to take actions that follow mission, vision, and purpose statements, so I’m looking forward to the upcoming SOS proposal!

Snapshot proposal: Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025
Voted: FOR with POAP
Reasoning (link):

I voted “FOR with POAP”. I think it’s important to keep presence on crypto events, especially the ones that have a hackathon. We need to get more builders who build new and innovative dApps on Arbitrum. The more dApps we get, the higher the chance we find so called “killer apps”, which are something that any successful ecosystem needs.

Snapshot proposal: OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Voted: AGAINST
Reasoning (link):

I vote AGAINST this proposal. While I think having a legal entity is beneficial, I think it should (at least initially) be a more passive and lean entity, used only when there’s a need for it. Cutting costs is harder than adding costs, so I think OpCo should start as lean as possible, and with the shorter initial (pilot) phase which could later be extended with a new proposal.

TALLY (DECEMBER 2024):

Tally proposal: Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons stated in my Snapshot vote.

Tally proposal: Treasury Management V1.2
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons stated in my Snapshot vote (reply 1, reply 2).

Governance calls in December:

  • I attended the bi-weekly Arbitrum governance call on 3 December 2024.