January Votes and Rationale
AIP: BOLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum
Voting FOR BOLD and whitelisting Infura Nova Validator
Rationale
- Arbitrum should move towards further decentralizing its stack not just for “ethereum alignment” but to become more regulatorily resilient, reduce counterpary risk for users, and become the best, most trustless rollup in the Ethereum ecosystem, and we love to see it moving towards these goals
*Infura validator rationale from snapshot
Feedback
We would have greatly preferred to have these two separate proposals as separate votes on tally.
bundling them in this way makes it hard for us to check that there wasnt new additions or modifications to the proposal .
We are certainly for both proposals and would have easily voted For them if unbundled, but bundling made it more difficult to check that they were indeed simply the progression of the snapshot proposals without any major changes or interconnection between the two proposals.
If the issue is quorum, we actually think its easier for people to vote on proposals quickly and often in favor of them when they are unbundled as its easier to simply check its the same proposal and quickly vote for it (instead of having to spend additional time DDIng the proposal and perhaps losing that vote) so even for quorum purposes it seems non ideal
Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
Voted FOR this proposal
Rationale
- Need for treasury diversification
- The proposal addresses the need to diversify the treasury into stable assets, especially considering the volatility of the ARB token.
- Diversification can potentially mitigate risks associated with fluctuations in the crypto market.1
- Ecosystem growth
- STEP 1 demonstrated a positive impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem, attracting RWA projects and contributing to TVL growth.
- Continuing this initiative could further solidify Arbitrum’s position in the RWA space.
- Competitive selection process
- The competitive RFP process ensures that the DAO selects high-quality RWA providers, promoting transparency and fairness in the allocation of funds.
Non-Constitutional: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead
Voting NO on this proposal
Rationale:
Very on the fence here because its a good idea to have a resource which gathers useful info for:
-DAO delegates
-developers
-ARB Holders
-potential ambassadars
And also to introduce people to Arbitrum DAO in general,
The budget would be reasonable if it addressed those use cases specifically and actionably, however looking at the current MVP there’s signs that it may not do so:
-the website doesnt address key stakeholders clearly
-the order of buttons and stakeholders doesnt seem organized in a way that makes sense (for instnace ambassadars is one of the first items but delegates, users, developers, would arguably be higher priority stakeholders to target)
-there are several broken links for key items
-many of the most useful working links are to AF docs or AF resources
On the plus side, we like the proposal hub, grant hub, meetings page. These provide useful content and guidance which is complementary to the Arbitrum foundation page.
Once again this is not a bad idea - having a resource for arbitrum DAO, but the current lack of focus and lack of clarity in messaging makes it hard for us to vote for this proposal, especially as many of the more important functions like the developer hub are duplicated with AF or basically link to their resources.
Would suggest progressing the MVP more with a quest book Grant.
Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals
We’re voting FOR this proposal
Rationale
- Fills a Governance Gap: The proposal addresses the DAO’s lack of clear, unified objectives, improving resource allocation and accountability.
- Structured, Transparent Process: A phased approach and OKR framework ensure inclusivity and clarity in defining objectives.
- Proactive Strategy: Moves the DAO towards proactive, strategic governance aligned with its long-term mission and vision.
- Flexibility and Accountability: Annual reviews and ad hoc adjustments allow adaptability, while clear objectives and key results enhance progress measurement.
- Encourages Participation: A transparent submission, feedback, and revision process fosters inclusivity and collaboration.
Points Worth Considering
- Timeline Duration: The three-month process may be too long for a fast-moving market; consider streamlining.
- Support for Contributors: Provide tools or templates to help less experienced contributors craft proposals.
- Centralization Risks: Distribute responsibility to mitigate over-reliance on Entropy Advisors.
- Clarity on Execution and Budget: Additional details on implementation and resource allocation are needed.
- Review Frequency: Evaluate if semi-annual reviews are necessary for agility without causing instability.