Treasure Delegate Communication Thread

Governance
,
1

About Treasure

Hey there, we’re Treasure! Treasure is a decentralized game publisher pioneering a new era of gaming in web3 owned and built by all.

Founded in 2021, Treasure has quickly grown to become a top gaming ecosystem that is home to over 15+ indie games built by seasoned game teams, including The Beacon, Mighty Action Heroes, Zeeverse, Kaiju Cards, Knights of the Ether, and many more. We also have our own in-house game studio working on developing its first flagship title based on the original Treasure IP. All projects on Treasure are linked–narratively and economically–through our network. Our community supports the entire game ecosystem to grow new projects and continue supporting more mature ones.

Treasure is one of the earliest projects to come to Arbitrum, and we’ve grown up together with it. We’re delighted and honored to be one of the largest delegates of Arbitrum DAO and look forward to representing the interests of our ecosystem and community, while advocating for the interests of gaming and entertainment, as well as other areas in order to help make Arbitrum one of the best places to be for builders and users (players!) alike.

Delegate Communication Thread

As a prominent participant in the Arbitrum ecosystem, Treasure acknowledges the significant responsibility due to the Treasure Community in advocating for the interests of the community as well as web3 gaming broadly within Arbitrum, and concurrently, fostering the expansion and prosperity of the overarching Arbitrum DAO.

Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC)

To fulfil this commitment, the Treasure core council has established the ARC, an independent community-led council, consisting of members from both the Treasure and Arbitrum communities. This initiative aims to facilitate more proactive monitoring, engagement, and active participation in Arbitrum’s governance initiatives. The ARC will allow Treasure core contributors to remain primarily focused on ecosystem growth at Treasure while also seeking to satisfy its obligation to the Treasure community to advocate for Treasure-specific and broader web3 gaming interests and effective governance processes at the Arbitrum, ultimately resulting in benefits to both the Treasure and Arbitrum communities.

The selection of initial eight members for the ARC was confirmed on 30th October and a kick off call was launched on November 6th.

Inaugural ARC Members

  • @thechaingamer.eth - early and active Treasure community member from September 2021, game developer, 12+ years in big tech & tech startups, focused on AI. Founder of Forgotten Machine (Ruffion Reborn and Into the Dungeons)
  • @CJ.Bzdewka - early and active Treasure community member from January 2022, council member of LifeVerse
  • @SmolPhil - early and active Treasure community member from September 2021, highly involved in Treasure DAO governance having led TIP-26, web3 gaming angel investor
  • @jona - early and active Treasure community member from September 2021, Founder of Realm, 15+ years of software engineering experience working in big tech and startups
  • @Pepperoni_Jo3 - Co-Founder of r3gen Finance (Treasure’s financial operations service provider), Head of Governance, Community & Change at Index Coop, Advisor to several web3 NFT, DeFi and DAO Tooling organizations
  • @karelvuong - Co-Founder of Treasure, angel investor, former VC and Chief of Staff, and startup executive
  • @jpatten - Co-Founder of Treasure and Founder of Smol
  • @pta - Economist at Treasure

Vision:

What we want to achieve…

To make Arbitrum the home of web3 gaming and Treasure DAO a leading voice within the Arbitrum gaming ecosystem.

Mission:

How we get there…

Empower web3 gaming on Arbitrum by swiftly identifying and onboarding talented developers, ensuring high impact execution of gaming initiatives and supporting effective governance of Arbitrum DAO.

Values:

We vote with our values and use them as a yardstick to dictate how we engage with the Treasure DAO and Arbitrum Communities. The ARC is aligned around the core values of:

  1. Integrity
  2. Innovation
  3. Experimentation
  4. Equal opportunity
  5. Community driven

North Stars

We are seeking to improve the following metrics as North Stars for the ARC:

  1. # gaming users in the Arbitrum ecosystem
  2. # gaming users in the Treasure ecosystem
  3. % share of txns relating to gaming within Arbitrum
  4. Transaction volume on the Arbitrum Network

Communication

We are committed to providing a high level of visibility and engagement over ARC activity to the Arbitrum and Treasure communities respectively. Key communication channels and cadence is broken down below:

  • Monthly ARC Community Call
    • We will host monthly ARC calls in the Treasure DAO Discord
  • Call attendance
    • A minimum of one member of the ARC will join the “Arbitrum Open Governance Call”, and “Open Arbitrum Delegates workshop / Arbitrum Top Problems workshop ” on a weekly basis.
    • We also commit to attending other relevant Arbitrum related calls as/when required
  • Delegate Thread
    • We will maintain the Treasure DAO Communication Thread and use it to confirm
      • Voting decision and rationale. To ensure continuity of conversation this will also be shared in the proposal specific thread.
      • Updates to ARC Structure or priorities

ARC Liaison

The ARC appreciates that the Arbitrum community desires proactive input and feedback on various proposals and emerging initiatives. To meet these expectations and ensure that the 8-person structure of the ARC does not hinder us from providing timely responses, we are introducing the ARC Liaison initiative.

This would see every Arbitrum Proposal be assigned 1-3 ARC Liaisons. These are the “go-to” people within ARC for any given proposal or initiative. The ARC Liaisons for any given proposal are responsible for:

  • Working with the Arbitrum Proposal team to review and deeply understand the contents of any given proposal
  • Providing updates on the proposal, share perspectives and answers question from the broader ARC
  • Collating broader feedback from the ARC and sharing it with the proposal team
  • Responsible for confirming and executing decision/vote on behalf of the ARC (once ARC multisig is set up)

This approach aims to facilitate more streamlined communication and engagement without requiring each member to provide exhaustive feedback on every proposal.

Engagement by the ARC Liaison for any given Arbitrum Proposal will be structured as follows depending on the stage of the proposal.

  • Pre-forum
    • ARC Liaisons are encouraged to provide their own personal perspectives on the proposal on the forum and in delegate channels.
  • Forum
    • ARC Liaisons will talk through proposal with the broader ARC team, and provide feedback and recommended changes on the proposal within the relevant forum thread
  • Snapshot
    • ARC Liaisons will confirm the final Snapshot decision with Broader ARC before making a final vote. ARC Liaisons will publish their rationale for the vote on the Treasure Delegate Thread and in the proposal specific post under the ARC forum account.
  • Tally
    • ARC Liaisons will confirm the final Snapshot decision with Broader ARC before making a final vote. ARC Liaisons will publish their rationale for the vote on the Treasure Delegate Thread and in the proposal specific post under the ARC forum account.

How to be assigned an ARC Liaison?

All governance proposals taken to Snapshot will be automatically assigned an ARC Liaison. Major governance proposals may be proactively assigned an ARC Liaison prior to being taken through Snapshot. We also provide opportunities for individuals wishing to take a proposal through Snapshot to request an ARC Liaison when the initiative and proposal is in its development stage. This can be done via the following steps:

  1. Join the Treasure DAO Discord
  2. Navigate to “Help and Support” and create a ticket under “ARC Enquiries Ticket”
  3. If you can’t see this channel, please go to “Channels & Roles”, “Browse Channels” and click the checkmark to follow the channel
  4. The ARC will then review your ticket and assign a Liaison
  5. The Liaison will reach out to you via the telegram contact details you provided in your Enquiries Ticket

Contact

Name: TreasureDAO
Delegate Address: 0x0eB5B03c0303f2F47cD81d7BE4275AF8Ed347576
Forum Accounts: @TreasureDAO @karelvuong @jona @CJ.Bzdewka @Pepperoni_Jo3 @thechaingamer.eth @SmolPhil @pta @jpatten
Tally Profile: Tally
Discord: discord.gg/treasuredao
Governance Forum: gov.treasure.lol
Websites: treasure.lol | app.treasure.lol
X / Twitter: @Treasure_DAO | @PlayOnTreasure | @treasuregov
Languages: English

Multisig Voting

The team’s costs, multisig addresses, and treasury information are publicly accessible and available in our bylaws for anyone who wishes to review them.

  • Delegate Address: arb1:0x0eB5B03c0303f2F47cD81d7BE4275AF8Ed347576
  • ARC Council Multisig: [To be added after ARC Hat implementation complete]
5 Likes
2

Arbitrum Short-Term Incentive Program (STIP) Round 1 Note

In relation to Arbitrum’s Short-Term Incentive Program (Arbitrum Improvement Proposal).

We were pleased as DAO contributors to see the amount of activity on this proposal and the increased awareness that came to the ecosystem as a result. To evaluate these requests as fairly as possible and due service to the amount of time it took to submit a proposal, we constructed a framework for on-chain metrics to guide our evaluations.

For the complete list of votes, see our profile on Snapshot.

Key Considerations

  • Arbitrum native or, if non-native, included Arbitrum as a major part of its strategy in addition to mainnet
  • Total volume, both historical and recent: we considered both factors and evaluated each project as pragmatically as we could given the impact that the bear market has had on projects further in their token life-cycle while younger projects benefit from increased token speculation even during such conditions. We tried to account for the total value that projects have brought to the ecosystem and their likelihood to thrive and provide continued value in the years ahead.
  • Accounted for differences in trade volume for perp protocols which generally have higher trade volumes due to leverage (notional values).
  • TVL: we looked at the TVL of protocols as a metric but tried to also evaluate the purpose that this TVL serves in each instance.
    • Where possible, we look to Dune dashboards to get a more normalised picture of project usage over time (self reported metrics over arbitrary or selective time periods can paint a different picture).
  • Evaluated gaming and social projects by a different framework: Gaming has lower financial metrics. We evaluated DAUs, retention metrics, and activity over time instead. For example, some gaming projects that submitted a proposal have DAUs multiples higher than DeFi protocols that dwarf these games in TVL. However, in regards to on-chain activity and value to Arbitrum, we regarded them as equal.
  • We also evaluated projects based on how likely they were to help bring value to all Arbitrum projects, for instance bridge, quest, and community loyalty projects that lowered friction for user acquisition and proposals could help with user retention for all Arbitrum projects as a whole.

“Against” vs. “Abstain” vs. Not Voting.

We deliberated the implications of voting “against” versus “abstain” versus not participating at all with the understanding that the votes functioned differently at different stages of the voting period. This latter point was somewhat confusing which has led to some misunderstandings.

The vote effectively went through 3 stages:

  1. Stage 1: Did the proposal pass the 71.5mil quorum?
  2. Stage 2: Did the proposal pass 50% approval? (for / (for + against))
  3. Stage 3: If over 50 mil is allocated, prioritise proposals with highest count of “for” votes (tiebreak with FCFS)

Stage 1

In the first stage of the vote, Treasure only voted “for” on proposals which we had high conviction in. Initially we had focused only on the projects we strongly felt would improve the Arbitrum ecosystem and meaningfully attract and retain new users according to the criteria outlined above.

Stage 2 + 3

As the dollar value of proposals that reached quorum began to exceed the $50mil cap, it became clear that we could better express our opinion and support our existing “for” votes by enacting “against” votes.

This isn’t to say that those projects aren’t doing interesting or valuable experimental work. Rather, these were projects that (in our opinion) appeared too early in development, a poor fit for user acquisition incentives at this stage of the market, or niche and complex products that would likely only enrich existing users of the project.

Other “against” votes were presented for projects and proposals which we felt were either overbearingly large relative to their stage and potential, or potentially risky to the Arbitrum ecosystem from both a user and builder’s perspective (second order implications where we may inadvertently discourage new projects choosing Arbitrum as a homebase).

On Abstaining vs. Not Participating

Since “abstain” votes matter only in the first stage in helping a proposal reach quorum, they were effectively votes that merely expressed our opinion without necessarily influencing outcomes.

Abstain votes were a way for us to express that we felt a proposal wasn’t quite ready for incentives or a right fit for increasing user acquisition and retention on Arbitrum (for a multitude reasons listed above), but also that we didn’t feel so strongly as to vote down a project and influence the outcome of the vote.

Treasure runs a games publishing ecosystem that depends on collaborating with other projects. We receive daily requests to look at various Arbitrum proposals, some of which we may not necessarily agree with, nor think helps the Arbitrum ecosystem and gaming in general. Ignoring requests to look at proposals can lead to tension and it isn’t the responsible answer either. Our primary responsibility is to prioritise TreasureDAO and remain diplomatic and express opinions tactfully in a way that doesn’t undermine future collaborations with projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem. An “abstain” vote helped us express this viewpoint more thoroughly.

6 Likes
3

Security Council Elections: Round 2 Update

Tally - Security Council Elections: Round 2

Important note: As flagged by a handful of other delegates, when attempting to vote, we encountered an issue that resulted in the entirety of our votes going to the first nominee. This was the result of a misunderstanding paired with the user experience of the Tally platform auto-filling and selecting the max vote allocation by default versus starting at zero to split our voting power towards multiple nominees. Unfortunately, this was an unintentional and irreversible action. With that said, our recommendations and desired allocations are listed below.

Recommendation

Ordered by planned vote allocation:

  1. Patrick McCorry (Arbitrum Foundation) - 20% | 5,514,766.18
  2. Harry Kalodner (Offchain Labs) - 20% | 5.51M
  3. 0xJiro (Sushi) - 15.0% | 4.14M
  4. Omer (Chaos Labs) - 5.0% | 1.38M
  5. Matt Fiebach (Blockworks) - 17.5% | 4.83M
  6. Emiliano Bonassi (Conduit) - 22.5% | 6.20M

Actual vote allocation:

  1. Patrick McCorry (Arbitrum Foundation) - 100% | 27.57M

Perspective and Assessment Framework

As a whole, we felt it was important to ensure the Security Council comprised with a mix of both deeply technical members as well as non-technical members. Members should also be geographically spread to ensure wide coverage across the globe in the event of any possible emergency that may require quick and decisive action. On the criteria for technical members, nominees were assessed on the basis of deep technical prowess and understanding, security experience, proficiency with the programming languages listed in the self assessment matrix, and overall contribution to the Arbitrum DAO and broader ecosystem. For non-technical members, we prioritized their contribution to Arbitrum DAO, communication ability, alignment with Arbitrum values, and overall reputation.

5 Likes
4

Backfund Successful STIP Grants

Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

As the DAO approved the initial round of STIPs, we believe that it is important to fund the smaller / newer projects that were at a disadvantage in the original selection process. This proposal will help boost the integrity of the original STIP. Moreover, the Arbitrum ecosystem would benefit from supporting these projects who have significant room to grow. Funding these teams will also help counteract governance and capital monopolies on Arbitrum by spreading $ARB among a more diverse group of users.

At the same time, we recognize some of the pitfalls of the initial iteration of the STIP and the uncertainty for any protocol or project who wished to apply for Round 2. As a council, we would like to see and further engage in the development of a Round 2 (3, 4, and so on) framework and move to forming a Long-Term Incentive Program (LTIP) as the DAO continues to progress, learn, and evolve to serve the interests of all builders and community members (current and future).

8 Likes
5

ArbOS Version 11

Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) will vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

We wholeheartedly endorse the ongoing technological advancements of Arbitrum, aiming to foster an improved ecosystem for both users and builders alike. In alignment with this vision, our vote is in favor of the ArbOS Version 11 proposal, as we believe it positively contributes to the progression and enhancement of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Procurement Framework | Security : Non-Constitutional Proposal

Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) will vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

  • Need for Robust Security: There is a clear need for robust security to safeguard the integrity and security of the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
  • Need for High Quality Providers: Selecting qualified, reliable, and high-quality security service providers is an important topic for Abritrum DAO to get right.
  • Efficiency, Transparency, and Fairness: We commend the proposal for taking significant strides toward establishing an efficient, transparent, and fair process for vendor selection. This framework is clearly well thought through and driving toward the delivery of high-impact outcomes for the DAO.
  • Clear Structure: We agree with the overall procurement structure proposed: sequentially covering: Needs Assessment [1], Publication of RFP [2], Submission Period [3], Evaluation Phase [4] and Whitelisting Onboarding & Contract [5]. We believe this framework has to deliver high-impact selection decisions for the DAO.
  • Proactive Identification of Needs: The inclusion of a Needs Assessment is particularly commendable, allowing the Arbitrum DAO to proactively identify crucial needs and select suitable service providers. We hope this proactive approach for vendor selection extends more broadly across the DAO.
  • Standardized RFP Process: We support the standardization of the RFP process submission guidelines, enhancing the ability for like-for-like comparisons of service providers and, consequently, improved selection outcomes for the DAO.
  • Ongoing Performance Monitoring: The provision for ongoing performance monitoring, review, and renewal ensures the DAO continues to receive suitable and secure service support throughout their engagement.
  • Further Clarity on Evaluation and Selection Process: There are still important details to flesh out, more notably the further details on the evaluation process, procurement committee, and final vendor selection mechanism. However, we are optimistic that further details will mirror the ethos of fairness, transparency, and inclusivity already expressed within this proposal.

In Summary

In summary we feel this proposal represents a well thought through and considered framework to helping the DAO address an important topic. We look forward to supporting the continued conversation.

Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal

Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) will vote AGAINST this proposal on Tally.

We would like to express our appreciation for the proposal to retroactively fund contributors for their early efforts in Arbitrum. Recognizing and rewarding the dedication of these individuals is a commendable initiative. However, after careful consideration and in alignment with concerns raised by other delegates, we find ourselves unable to support the proposal in its current form for the following reasons:

  • Lack of Information on Arbiters and Their Contributions: We understand and appreciate the inherent challenges in quantifying contributions, but the current proposal lacks essential details about the group of Arbiters and their specific contributions. We advocate for a more comprehensive and transparent breakdown of individual efforts and achievements, evidenced by concrete examples and links to work products. This additional information is crucial for enhancing transparency and enabling delegates to make informed decisions.
  • Absence of Justification and Detailed Breakdown for Requested Amount: It is unclear how the proposed amount was determined or how the allocation to individual Arbiters is directly correlated with individual or group contributions to ensure a fair and equitable distribution. To ensure fairness and transparency in the retroactive reward process and to set a sound precedent for future contributors seeking retroactive payment, we urge a more detailed and justified breakdown of the requested amount.
  • Incentivise Ongoing Support: As supported by other delegates, we advocate for the establishment of a clear and open framework to incentivize future contributions. In cases where responsibilities predominantly involve Discord moderation or other forward-looking activities, we propose exploring a continuous and sustainable compensation program that encourages ongoing contributions rather than a one-time retroactive payment.

In summary, while we share the principle of rewarding contributors, we believe the proposal requires amendments to address critical concerns raised by various delegates and the community. We encourage a thorough review and revision of the proposal to provide the necessary transparency into the retroactive payment as well as outlining a framework for compensation for future contributions.

As the voting deadline approaches, we have chosen to vote against the current proposal. We remain open for discussions and available to provide additional feedback as required.

6

Introducing the Treasure ARC Charter

Please kindly note that the opening post has been updated to reflect the addition of Treasure’s ARC Charter as originally posted on Treasure’s governance forum on January 2, 2024 at 12:57pm EST.

2 Likes
7

Long-Term Incentive Pilot Program

Treasure DAO’s Arbitrum Council (ARC) will vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot to fund the program with 45,815,000 (ranked in descending order of ARB amount).

Treasure has been involved in the pre-forum socialization process for the Long-Term Incentive Pilot Program (LTIPP) and believes it addresses many of the challenges identified through STIP Round 1, further builds upon it, and will set the foundation to establish a long-term, sustainable incentives/grants program that will support the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

  • Tests a program structure that could be greatly scaled up across sectors with a lens towards plurality: In the long run, we believe that sector/cluster-based programs with DAO-elected councils comprising subject matter experts and Arbitrum-aligned builders will win out as the optimal set up to award incentives. LTIPP will serve as the first stab at this, applied against all categories within Arbitrum DAO which will be an informative exercise while unlocking necessary funds for ecosystem protocols and builders.
  • Broadens scope of incentives to enable greater flexibility: Coming from the gaming angle, we’re delighted to see the acknowledgement of this problem (#3) as it was a pain point that was universally shared across games both in and outside of the Treasure DAO ecosystem. Notably, the strict limitation on incentive mechanisms forced DeFi distributions of grants which needed to be expressly complied with which we do not believe to be aligned to the needs of games.
  • Reduces the burden on delegates while maintaining veto power: As an active delegate who reviewed and voted on all STIP Round 1 applicants, the burden placed on protocol delegates was great as we felt the weight of responsibility and expectation to strive to participate in the STIP engagement, review, and voting process, while also delivering against the needs of Treasure DAO’s own priorities.

With our support of this proposal, we also urge the DAO to consider the following:

  • Electing a diverse council: We believe the council approach paired with the application advisors are both a step in the right direction. Beyond this, what will be of paramount importance are two things: (1) ensuring both groups comprise balanced, knowledgeable and thoughtful members who can represent Arbitrum’s diverse ecosystem of projects across sectors; and (2) ensuring the council designs a universal rubric that can be applied across all types of projects – whether they be DeFi, RWAs, gaming, infrastructure, and so on.
  • Getting this program in front of as many Arbitrum builders as possible: For those of us who have been deeply engaged in Arbitrum governance, this has been a major topic of discussion for some time. For those outside of it though, it’s easy to not be aware of this potential funding and support path for all who would be able to benefit from this. The Arbitrum DAO community and Arbitrum Foundation needs to amplify and promote this program as much as possible to get this in front of the protocols and builders helping grow the Arbitrum network.
8

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal

In the absence of one consolidated forum thread related to the recent LTIP “Post Council Feedback” proposal submission, our voting rationale will be provided here instead.

We are voting Abstain across all proposals.

This decision is informed by, and aligned with, GFXLab’s perspective and recommendations on this topic.

1 Like
9

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal

We would also like to confirm our nomination for Secruity Council as:

This selection was informed by reputation and technical expertise, as well as consideration that Security Council members be selected from a diversity of location.

10

STIP-B & Curve Grant Request

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal

We believe the whole mechanism of STIP-B is flawed. We don’t think delegates should be expected to do specific analysis of user incentive programs and expected to weigh in on and vote on every proposal. It places too weight on the builders in the ecosystem and detracts from the key activity that will make Arbitrum successful. Moreover, many STIP-B proposals which were submitted late (and thus are auto up for challenge) didn’t receive a timely review and feedback from the ARDC, so are being assessed by delegates without those important insights. We believe the DAO needs to stand up a professional, well funded structure which will oversee, refine and promote best practices for user incentives program on an ongoing basis (similar to OpCo or GCP). This will allow the DAO to get a far better ROI on it’s investments, and give delegates time back to focus on making their projects, and thus Arbitrum, a success.

Our vote was aligned with this perspective, in that it expressed a desire for an improved system (Abstain) OR voted Against projects which we believe were not suitable for further funding.
We have great admiration for many of the projects who put forward applications, and know this voting decision will be a disappointment to some. That’s why we want to make clear we still support user incentives generally, but wish to do so under an improved system. We believe this in the best interest of Arbitrum DAO.

Proposal* Voting Decision**
Grant Request - Curve Finance Abstain
MUX Protocol Abstain
Dolomite Abstain
Sanko GameCorp Abstain
Thetanuts Finance Abstain
Umami Finance Abstain
KyberSwap Abstain
Stargate Abstain
Stake Against
Angle DAO Against
OpenOcean Against
Socket Bridge Against
Savvy DAO Abstain
Thales Protocol Against
Boost Against
Gains Network Against
Furucombo Against
Solv Abstain
Tide Abstain

*We have included our voting decision for “Grant Request for Curve Finance” in this rationale because our reasoning for voting on this proposal is the same as our rational for STIP-B Proposals.

** In some instances our vote did not successfully execute on Snapshot/Tally. This is due to a bug with the Zodiac/Hats mod. We have detailed our intended voting outcome here.

1 Like
11

Thank you for voicing this view, which we think is widely held. Thank you also for laying out the pain points in a concise manner.

12

After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on recent Arbitrum proposals

Voting - Tally

As a prominent gaming DAO in the Arbitrum ecosystem, we wholeheartedly support this proposal aimed at fostering the growth and adoption of gaming. Our deep involvement in the proposal process underscores our excitement and commitment as it advances beyond Tally. Let’s go catalyze gaming ecosystem growth on Arbitrum!

This is clearly a significant initiative, and we are pleased to see that initial community concerns have been effectively addressed. We are excited to witness the implementation of this solution!

We will continue to support this proposal on Tally. Since the proposal has remained unchanged since Snapshot, our rationale for this vote remains consistent with our previous statements.

Voted - Snapshot

This proposal recommends straightforward adjustments designed to increase efficiency, enhance automation, and enable key leaders to act more swiftly. Additionally, it leverages DAO token governance to address specific administrative matters. These are all initiatives we support, and thus, we endorse the LTIPP Proposal.

The ARC has voted for this proposal on Snapshot. We recognize the significant cost saving opportunity this proposal represents, as well as the improved security of having a more structured process for signer selection. The addition of Token Flow reporting is valuable to provide the DAO greater visibility on spending and enable delegates to have a more informed forward looking view on DAO spend.

13

After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on recent Arbitrum proposals

We are voting FOR this proposal on Tally aligned with our prior voting rational.

Similarly we are voting FOR this proposal on Tally algined with our prior expressed view:

We are voting “Abstain” on this proposal, aligning with the ARC’s general stance on user incentives.

14

Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund

The Treasure ARC has voted “Against” this proposal after monitoring the discussion both for and against. We agree with various other delegates’ opinions that the ADPC would appear to have the required skills to fulfil this task, have stated that they are willing and able to be responsible for it and that it falls within their original mandate. We also are in agreement that standing up this additional sub-committee would add extra, unnecessary complexity and bloat to the process along with adding significant delays and cost while being actioned.

15

The ARC voted “Abstain” on the Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives on Tally. The rational for this is consistent with the ARC previously stated stance on user incentive programs.

16

AIP: BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum
AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment
AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Operational cost sentiment

The Treasure ARC voted to APPROVE these proposals, being in support of the technical upgrades and being aligned with the work of the foundation.

17

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal

[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative

TreasureDAO’s ARC will vote in favor (FOR) of this proposal in the Snapshot phase, choosing the ‘[No IRL Event]’ option.

The reasoning of there being overlap between M&A and the AVI is definitely true, but there is also a difference in that the M&A mainly seems to focus on strengthening the Arbitrum tech stack through M&A while AVIs main focus is having a native investment arm to more generally grow the Arbitrum economy through the addition of new protocols and ventures. For this reason, having both the M&A and the AVI could make sense. This also means that, we don’t necessarily agree with some of the statements made envisioning the AVI to be the overarching investment arm within ArbitrumDAO. Given the need for more comprehensive spending of ecosystem funds besides simple incentives and grants we are supportive of these types of initiatives and think that a research phase is a good way to give the DAO an early governance temperature check, before fleshing the program out further. With that, there was also some discussion on how best to move forward with research and programs like this, given the unsolicited nature of this proposal.

A concern in regards to the initial proposal is the lack of operational structure envisioned for the AVI. We understand the need to dynamically adjust and incorporate operational structures from other similar programs, but do think having a bit more structure as to what the AVI would preferably look like based on the knowledge and expertise there is now would be a good idea.
Another concern is the focus for key themes preferably being ‘data-driven’, without a clear indication what data it is driven by. Of course figuring out what data should be used to identify these key themes is also the main goal of the pilot, but the initial thesis development mentioning ‘Identification of key sectors (e.g. within DeFi, Social, Consumer, DeSci, DePIN, etc) and their relevance to Arbitrum’, among the rationale also noting certain sectors of perceived strength, hints towards some sectors already being given an inclination before going into the research phase (which also inherently complicates the next phase because that ‘only’ consults around 30 founders and 15 funds). It would be good to know where this inclination stems from, i.e. if there already is some data/research to support the inclination towards these sectors.
The proposal is not entirely clear on the time required of team members, and the composition of the events budget. Given the size of the budget, we would advise on a more comprehensive budget breakdown (including time and resource allocation) before proceeding to Tally.

18

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal

[Non-Constitutional] Pilot Stage: Treasury Backed Vaults research and development

TreasureDAO’s ARC will vote AGAINST this proposal.

If there is a need to do grants in stablecoin, a good first step for the DAO would be to diversify the Treasury’s assets if the DAO in fact decides that it wants to diversify into stablecoins for these (or other) purposes. This would then also facilitate the DAO with the relevant diversification of assets to more safely be able to cover any potential debt that these vaults create.

Besides the DAO not having any mechanisms for the diversification of assets to cover debts, there are some other concerns in regards to this proposal:

  • Having to lock up a significant amount of $ARB to get returns that could in fact fund grants, with no dedicated oversight but the DAO (which collectively doesn’t have the necessary expertise), and no comprehensive plan besides a simple ‘savior module’.
  • The debt limit has to be fairly low, given the low on-chain liquidity for $ARB and the higher risk for exploitation that a singular solution (‘savior module’) to liquidation brings.
  • The overall costs could be more detailed. The fact that the debt limit has to be fairly low also begs the question if the risk to reward is there to get this off the ground at this point in time.

We were pretty surprised to see this proposal go to Snapshot this fast after being posted on the forum. It probably would have been a good idea to wait and discuss a bit longer. Nevertheless, we are happy to see that the proposal is being worked out more because of feedback by the community.

1 Like
19

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal:

[Non-Constitutional] ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO

TreasureDAO’s ARC will vote AGAINST this proposal.

We see potential concerns in building out the ArbitrumHub for two different reasons:

  1. The fragmentation of information through different media platforms and parties. This could, in theory, be resolved by working closely together with the already established communication platforms (especially those set up by the Foundation) and streamlining that.
  2. Power centralization by having a single party collating all the information within the DAO.

Besides the aforementioned reasons, we also consider the budget to be on the higher side.

20

Replying to free up the posting limit.