Oh I really love this idea and believe that “The Watchdog” will create a solid mechanism to monitor and protect the DAO funds.
Plus, it will boost Arbitrum’s credibility, showing the DAO’s commitment to safeguarding resources and promoting transparency 
Just a small suggestion, I think the DAO should implement a clear reporting process so the community can join easily and reduce the risks of incorrect or incomplete reports.
Hi Entropy team,
I appreciate the work that has been put into updating this proposal. Given the importance and potential impact of it, I’d like to suggest allowing a few more days for the community to provide feedback before moving the proposal to a snapshot.
This would give all stakeholders more time to evaluate the recent updates and ensure that the proposal reflects the collective interests of the DAO. I believe such a step would strengthen the decision-making process and uphold the transparency and inclusivity we all value.
Thank you for considering this request.
The Watchdog is now up for a temperature check on Snapshot.
@EmmanuelO Our team appreciates the request, but with the recent updates being only minor language clarifications, we feel that it is not necessary to delay this vote an additional week. The Watchdog has been on the forum now for 26 days vs the normal 7 day requirement. If the updates had introduced major changes to the program’s design/structure, then Entropy would agree that more time for delegates to review would be warranted.
Im voting FOR this great proposal on snapshot; offering financial rewards for valid reports of misappropriation, motivates us to keep a watchful eye on
the fair and honest growth of Arbitrum. Carrying out this project is very inexpensive compared to how significant it can be to increase security and encourage greater accountability. Proposals like this are a yes for me. Great Job!
Im voting YES. This proposal is very much needed after what we have seen for example with Furucombo funds happened.
Detailed explanation can be seen here.
Explanation in detail
voting For the current offchain proposal because I’ve been begging Entropy since October to publish this proposal once and for all. There has been misuse of funds in this DAO, and this proposal should incentivize people to look for those and report them. For example, I just recently found a $10k USD worth of misused funds that were reverted to the DAO after my report. We should all do more of that.
We’ve voted in favor of this proposal, which hopefully is deployed to return misused funds back to the DAO. Making the program open to the community should incentivize good actors to find examples of misuse for reporting while discouraging bad actors from misusing funds.
However, we think this doesn’t get to the root of the problems with the DAO, which relate much more to general overspending and bad strategy. We also encourage the community to remove the need for such policing by correctly allocating funds towards beneficial projects in the first place. If grant programs don’t continue to be needlessly profligate then this kind of bounty program won’t be necessary.
Thank you, @Entropy, for this amazing proposal!
Addressing the real problem of misuse of funds in Arbitrum DAO by creating a reward system for reporting it is a great idea.
The proposal specifies that the initial group of three DAO-associated reviewers will consist of representatives from the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy Advisors, and the elected Research Member of the ARDC
However, it does not explicitly mention who will initially choose these three entities?
Will we vote on candidates or will they be pre-selected based on their current positions and roles in the DAO ecosystem? And if it is not the delegates who choose them by voting, then who will? What is meant by “whitelisted”?
I also wonder if 400,000 ARB will be enough for long-term effectiveness, or if there are plans for extending the budget if successful?
Thanks in advance for answers.
This proposal is very good, and received many responses in the previous feedback, I vote: yes at snapshot The reasons are as follows: 1. DAO’s fund allocation needs an effective monitoring mechanism, and the current lack of reporting incentives and mechanisms to protect whistleblowers makes it difficult to detect abuses. This project can motivate the community to participate in monitoring and improve the transparency and security of DAO’s fund usage. 2. The reward mechanism is clear and will balance abuse and anti-abuse.
I support the proposal. The Entropy team proposes a sensible mechanism to monitor the use of DAO funds while encouraging community members to actively report misuse of funds. The Watchdog Project is an interesting, innovative, and necessary proposal that could significantly improve DAO accountability and optimize the management of funds. With a few improvements in false reporting, RFP transparency, and whistleblower flexibility, I believe the program could better serve the Arbitrum community. I will vote in favor. Here are my reasons and additional suggestions:
Reasons for support:
1. Clear process and incentive mechanism: The proposal defines the severity of funds misuse (low, medium, and high) and designs an incentive mechanism for whistleblowers that takes into account both the base incentive and the percentage of funds recovered. This approach effectively incentivizes whistleblowing behavior while providing real value to the DAO’s funds recovery efforts.
2. Deterrent effect: A transparent and fair bounty program not only helps recover misused funds but also serves as a deterrent to potential malicious actors, further protecting the interests of the DAO.
3. Follow-up: The proposal includes a 6-month trial period and a commitment to provide a retrospective report and data summary at the end of the period. This ensures the community has a basis for evaluating and optimizing the program.
My additional recommendations:
1. Transparency of the RFP process: The proposal mentions that Entropy will be responsible for vendor selection, but delegates will only see the results. I recommend strengthening community engagement, such as regular updates on the RFP evaluation process or introducing transparent scoring criteria, to increase trust.
2. Flexibility in KYC requirements: The current scheme requires whistleblowers to complete KYC in order to receive a reward, but this may deter some whistleblowers, especially in sensitive cases. Would it be possible to provide an option for whistleblowers to “report anonymously but forfeit the reward,” thereby encouraging more submissions?
3. Dynamic adjustments in the allocation of funds: While the budget of 400,000 ARB may seem sufficient, the actual impact will depend on subsequent implementation. I suggest providing a brief report on the use of funds and the effectiveness of the plan halfway through the pilot phase to give the community an early understanding of progress. Personally, I would prefer a team linear release to motivate everyone.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR in this proposal. Below the rationale:
I vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot
As I mentioned before, I support having incentives to detect cases of misuse of funds granted by the DAO.
@Entropy has updated the proposal based on the feedback received from delegates, so I agree with its final version.
One aspect I am not fully convinced about is the need for an RFP to build a platform to handle these communications. I believe using public infrastructure, such as ProtonMail, would suffice. Entropy could provide an email address where anyone can send evidence and a clean address where they want to receive the funds. I don’t see why this needs to be made more complex, especially considering that claiming the bounty would require going through a KYC process.
Voting in favor of the proposal.
We need the ability to tell to “someone” if something is wrong, without fear of repercussion in a space that is not only quite small but lacks proper accountability like other industries, at least for now.
I love that was introduced the clause for which people can submit a report without having to kyc if they don’t want the reward: this is key for several actors, such as protocols, that are best positioned to understand what is going on and if there is anybody acting in a shady way. Pretty sure there were plenty of protocols during stip, ltipp, stip bridge, that saw stuff that was “non compliance” and were just hesitant of coming forward due to fear of repercussion, reputational damage and what not due to the lack of this program.
I am also in favor to build an ad-hoc infra for this (@pedrob mentions protonmail, but would not suffice imho because it will make the commission work just too complex; it also does not allow for proper anonimity on the side of whistleblower if they are not careful enough on their email).
But would like to see this infra lately fall into the hands of opco, not in the management sense, but in the ownership sense, as well as all the other website we will build for our dao.
Thanks Entropy
Voting YES on this proposal in Snapshot.
Adding levels of potential misuse is a positive variable for the proposal. Tying bounties to fund recovery will also make the program sustainable. Making the process public adds transparency and gives the DAO enough input to correctly assess any misuse.
I would only add that while I consider this a necessary check against misallocation, I view it as one component of a broader effort to maintain oversight. I also appreciate that this proposal lays out a path for eventual integration under OpCo once that entity is established. This will give OpCo an additional operational focus and will bring depth to oversight under a single framework.
Voting ‘FOR’ this proposal on Snapshot. As I mentioned on my previous reply, the cost to implement this program is minimal, and the benefits are significant. I’m convinced this program will serve as a deterrent against “grant farmers” and encourage greater accountability across the ecosystem.
I appreciate Entropy addressing my questions above, as well as addressing the broader delegate feedback. I think this is ultimately well thought-out, and with these changes there really isn’t any concerned on my end. I will be voting “For” this proposal.
To more impactfully signal support, I want to note that some type of program like this is important to the health of the DAO. Perception matters, and the DAO will function best if there are deterrents to bad-faith applicants. It would be naive to think bad actors would try to abuse the DAO’s treasury, so having a way to combat this is good to see. Considering the relatively cheap cost, I don’t really see a reason not to do this in perpetuity, and look forwarded the retrospective report. Especially since it was indicated all prior projects are eligible for review.
Voted For: When I first heard about this proposal, I was excited about it. This kind of program has a good record with other projects/companies in Web2, so I believe this will transition well in our space. I also appreciate the updates and extra clarification that Entropy Advisors provided to my comment regarding reports being public. It has now been changed so that the committee will decide which cases will be made public and which will not. I also appreciate that the program will have a trial period of 6 months, after which the report will be presented to the DAO. I am excited to see how many of these cases the program will cover and how much funds can be recovered for the DAO. The best-case scenario here is that the amount recovered by the watchdog would exceed the program’s budget of 400k ARB.
We support the Watchdog Proposal as it introduces a critical accountability mechanism to ensure DAO funds are used responsibly. By incentivizing community members to report misuse, the program helps deter malicious behavior, recover misallocated funds, and foster transparency. Its fair and scalable reward system encourages participation, this initiative strengthens trust and protects the DAO’s financial integrity, aligning with its mission to promote responsible and impactful resource allocation.
I’m definitely voting FOR this proposal. We’ve seen grant funds misused in the past, and I think that this initiative is a step in the right direction to prevent wasted resources. Monitoring these issues is typically challenging, but I believe that the “horizontal” reward system addresses this effectively, while also strengthening the community. Having more eyes on the situation is a smart approach to proactive oversight. I appreciate how this not only safeguards our funds but also encourages active community participation.
I really hope that this will make a change. It’s always frustrating to see funds being misused or wasted due to shady practices, but I’m optimistic that this can help turn things around. Thank you @Entropy for the proposal! (and sorry for the late comment on this)
Voted “For” based on my previous comments. I believe this is a great program and worth pursuing. The cost is minimal, and implementing this program will create a strong incentive structure to deter bad actors.