The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program

Proposals
101

This is the most straightforward vote for me so far — I’m voting FOR. I believe this program can improve how treasury funds are used, support the DAO’s long-term health, and bring more transparency across initiatives.

One small point I wanted to raise: I noticed the proposal was first discussed back in December. The reason I mention this — and not as a criticism — is because I’m genuinely curious about what caused the delay. I searched the forum but couldn’t find a clear explanation, and understanding this would be helpful to me as I try to follow governance more closely and learn how things evolve over time.

Thanks again to the team for putting this together and helping the DAO grow stronger.

1 Like
102

We voted for the proposal on Tally

103

Thank you @Entropy for this amazing proposal. I have been following this proposal very keenly to see how it will transform. should i have any voting power, i would have voted million times for it.

105

I’m in full support of this proposal. I’m voting FOR on Tally.

106

Just voted YES on The Watchdog proposal on tally. This is the kind of market-driven accountability mechanism Arbitrum needs.

What stands out here is how The Watchdog elegantly applies several of Ostrom’s principles for managing shared resources:

  1. Monitoring by community members: By creating financial incentives for community sleuths, we’re establishing decentralized monitoring that Ostrom identified as crucial for sustainable governance. This turns every community member into a potential guardian of our treasury.
  2. Graduated sanctions: The low/medium/high severity classifications with corresponding bounties creates the kind of proportional response system that prevents both over and under-punishment, maintaining trust in the system.
  3. Conflict resolution mechanisms: The review committee structure provides a clear path for resolving disputes, another core Ostrom principle that prevents governance paralysis.
  4. Minimal recognition of rights: The program respects the autonomy of grant recipients while establishing boundaries for misconduct - striking the exact balance Ostrom advocated for.

What makes this proposal particularly strong is that it aligns market incentives with ecosystem health. As someone who’s consistently advocated for skin in the game and performance-based accountability, I see this as the perfect complement to our grants programs.

1 Like
107

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

We strongly believe the Watchdog program represents a crucial initiative for safeguarding DAO resources. It leverages community vigilance, enabling a proactive approach to ensuring DAO funds are utilized effectively and responsibly.

Initially, we built an MVP called Truence (GitHub Repo) that incorporates most required functionalities outlined in the initial proposal, with the intention to participate if an RFP process was conducted for selecting the service provider to develop the Watchdog platform.

When Entropy Advisors mentioned that no RFP process would be conducted and they are exploring an alternative solution, we shared our solution directly with them to explore how it could best serve the DAO without charging anything for the platform. Ultimately, Entropy decided to proceed with GlobaLeaks due to its extensive usage, proven reliability, and robust privacy features, criteria which we also value highly. As delegates, we respect this decision and support moving forward with the program. Our MVP was created purely out of enthusiasm and support for this critical initiative, and taken part in the RFP process if it had been conducted.

Additionally, we acknowledge the committee’s decision to release Watchdog reports on a case-by-case basis. We encourage timely and transparent disclosures whenever possible, as consistent updates will help the community and delegates to stay updated on the program.

Overall, the Watchdog program marks a significant step forward for the Arbitrum DAO, enhancing security, accountability, and community involvement. We look forward to its successful implementation and long-term impact.

1 Like
108

I voted FOR on this proposal. This is an structured effort to encourage parties to review the correct use of funds and indentify any wrongdoing. I will be following the findings/reports to verify it effectiveness.

1 Like
109

Voting FOR

The current format eliminates accountability for some of the most powerful entities in Arbitrum, which is problematic as it compounds with other changes in the same direction. That being said, it’s better than nothing and still fulfils the core purpose of analysing grant missuse

1 Like
110

Voting for this proposal.

It helps us bring more accountability and aligns us with TWO of Elenor Ostrom’s principles that are commonly not applied hard enough in DAOs: mutual monitoring and graduated sanctions.

It’s rare to see something that we can vote on that will bring more accountability to the DAO in a decentralized way.

kids thumbs up

3 Likes
111

I have voted “Yes” to this proposal, as I believe it adds a layer of crowdsourced accountability without much of a downside at all.

As has been mentioned by others I have some concerns that there might be spurious, “gold-digging” reports or that this might lead to some public accusations around instances where fund-usage is just on the borderline of misuse or not, creating a situation where there is an incentive for reporters to argue their case publically. Ultimately these are process/implementation details that I think can be sorted out, and don’t outweigh the overall good of the proposal either way.

2 Likes
112

Voting FOR this proposal, for the reasons highlighted at the snapshot stage: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program - #71 by mcfly

1 Like
113

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.

Rationale

Due to our clear Conflict of Interest with respect to this proposal we have decided to abstain.

114 
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2585929699385410815)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
115

As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR.

Below the rationale:

1 Like
116

Im voting FOR on this

This is a solid step towards more accountability in the DAO. Feels like a no-brainer to have something like this in place — it empowers the community to keep things in check without adding too much overhead. Sure, there might be edge cases or noise, but the upside is worth it. Glad to support this.

117

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We voted FOR the proposal.

As previously stated, we understand the motivation behind launching this initiative. However, we remain cautious about its potential effectiveness and the possible involuntary consequences it may introduce. That said, given its nature as a pilot program and the current absence of a DAO-wide mechanism to ensure accountability and proper fund allocation, we believe it’s worth giving the proposal a chance.

118

Entropy proposed The Watchdog to fill a gap in Arbitrum’s governance: the absence of a system to detect and respond to misuse of DAO-allocated funds. We recognize that a conflict of interest exists given that Entropy is a member of the reviewing committee and are disclosing this to the DAO before voting FOR on Tally.

119 
Voting has ended!
===============
[The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2585929699385410815)

### Final Votes

| **Category**         | **Result**       | **Details**                 |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached**   | ✅ | 205.83M of 132.07M         |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ |                             |
| **For**              |                  | 184.71M (89.7%)    |
| **Against**          |                  | 115.99k (0.1%) |
| **Abstain**          |                  | 21.13M (10.3%) |

* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
120

no it hasn’t… there is still more than 24 hours left to vote on this onchain proposal.

121

We vote for this proposal, keeping the same opinion as our Snapshot vote. This proposal offers a low-cost safeguard that can return multiples of its 400k ARB budget by preventing or clawing back misused funds. We value the clear incentive alignment, because it mobilises independent investigators without the overhead of a permanent audit team. Privacy protections through GlobaLeaks and a three-member committee with conflict-of-interest rules mitigate retaliation risk while keeping oversight accountable to the DAO. The six-month pilot and mandatory retrospective report give tokenholders concrete data to refine or retire the program, making support a prudent, risk-controlled choice for long-term value creation.