Treasure Delegate Communication Thread

[Pepperoni_Jo3]

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

• Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal

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

@Pepperoni_Jo3

We want to thank L2Beat for taking the initiative to address this important topic of security. After discussion we open to support the proposal to increase the threshold to 9/12.

We feel that this option provides the cleanest and clearest “win-win” security benefit for Arbitrum which does not also impact the timeline of an already long governance process.

• ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights

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

@SmolPhil

Although this proposal might be imperfect, we can also not expect an initial proposal to fund web3/crypto litigation to be perfect. We do however realize that there is some time-sensitivity at play, because court cases continue regardless of Arbitrum DAO funding. On top of that, funding crypto litigation sends a clear signal that Arbitrum DAO is willing to stand alongside the institutions that are defending our rights to privacy, as well as our rights to develop (on) and make use of blockchain technology. This way, Arbitrum DAO can potentially grow towards a better and more organic way of funding the institutions that defend our rights. For these reasons, the Treasure ARC has decided to fund both DEF and Coin Center with 500.000 $ARB each, instead of the 1.000.000 $ARB that @immutablelawyer would have voted for if he were to be a delegate. This gives the DAO more control over the situation and hopefully motivates one or both of these parties (or any other party standing up for crypto rights) to come to the DAO themselves if (additional) funding is needed.

• Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives

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

@Pepperoni_Jo3

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.

@Pepperoni_Jo3

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.