Ultra Delegate Communication Thread

[0x_ultra]

This is ultra’s delegate communication thread. It will be updated periodically.

[0x_ultra]

STIP Bridge Challenges Rationale:

1. MUX: For, although they posted their application late, they re-adjusted and lowered their ask. I believe this time their metrics will be better.
2. Stargate: For, I believe it will positively impact TVL bridged over to Arbitrum
3. Solv: For, relatively small ask, it’s worth exploring how these incentives can impact their growth.
4. Sanko Games: For, one of the most innovative and organic growth projects on Arbitrum. They deserve growth support.
5. Tide: Against, I don’t believe incentivising will bring meaningful results
6. KyberSwap: Against, I don’t believe incentivising will bring meaningful results
7. Gains: For, I believe gains represents a big part of Arbitrum and should continue to be incentivised.
8. Boost: Against, I don’t believe incentivising will bring meaningful results + sybil
9. Thales: For, their previous STIP was a success, its worth continuing to support.
10. Savvy: For, relatively small ask, the concerns raised don’t seem worth not having this pass.
11. Stake DAO: Against, I don’t believe incentivising will bring meaningful results. Previous metrics quite concerning
12. Furucombo: Against, poor usage of previous STIP funds + wash trading concerns
13. Socket Bridge: Against, unclear handling of funds during previous STIP, unclear results and why this time it would be different.
14. Angle: Against, poor results during first STIP and no meaningful change to address them
15. OpenOcean: Against, agree with ARDC comments
16. Thetanuts Finance: For, good performance and team addressed farming concerns.
17. Dolomite: For, don’t personally see a problem with the incentives method used. oARB is a powerful tool.
18. Umami: For, same as Dolomite.

[0x_ultra]

Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)

Platform: Snapshot

Vote:

1. FOR: Implement MSS and Reporting
2. FOR: Implement MSS
3. Against
4. Abstain

Rationale:

[RFC] Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)

I will be voting “For”. I find myself in agreement with most points raised by JoJo. On the expense side, costs are definitely high for what’s being proposed and for that reason reporting and accountability is even more important. 12 month terms are also abnormal within the DAO and would love to see this revised. Overall this is a positive change, but I hope this is not the final form of the proposal that makes it to Tally.

[0x_ultra]

Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For

Rationale:

Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties

I’m voting in support of this proposal. Giving more autonomy to the LTIPP council facilitates management of internal funds and makes it more efficient. Overall, council has better expertise, knowledge and more time to evaluate the LTIPP bounty grants compared to most delegates. I agree with the suggestion proposed by @Bob-Rossi , although giving more autonomy and speeding the process up is important - leaving some backdoors where the DAO can intervene such as a challenge period is equally as i…

[0x_ultra]

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For

Rationale:

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives (UPDATED)

Voting “For” on Snapshot. Both teams have a proven track record and although the ask is pretty high, its a good bet to onboard more funds and activity over to Arbitrum. As Jojo and Blockworks mentioned, perhaps the fee rebate should be reduced to 75% to be in line with other similar running programs and promote a more equal playing ground for all platforms on the fees side. I’m eager to see how user retention will look like post-incentives period. Good luck!

[0x_ultra]

AIP: Nova Fee Router Proposal (ArbOS 30)

Platform: Snpashot

Vote: For

Rationale:

AIP: Nova Fee Router Proposal (ArbOS 30)

I voted in favor. As it’s mentioned, the proposal will provide faster, easier and simpler access to these funds. I only see benefits from its implementation.

[0x_ultra]

AIP: Activate Stylus and Enable Next-Gen WebAssembly Smart Contracts (ArbOS 30)

Platform: Snpashot

Vote: For

Rationale:

AIP: Activate Stylus and Enable Next-Gen WebAssembly Smart Contracts (ArbOS 30)

Voting For Stylus is an incredibly exciting development for Arbitrum, can’t wait to see more developers adopting it.

[0x_ultra]

AIP: Support RIP-7212 for Account Abstraction Wallets (ArbOS 30)

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For

Rationale:

AIP: Support RIP-7212 for Account Abstraction Wallets (ArbOS 30)

I’m voting “For” this proposal as it will improve account security and will ensure Arbitrum to remains competitive with other L2s.

[0x_ultra]

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

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: Against

Rationale:

Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund

Voting against. After waiting for a while for discussions to unfold on the forum I believe at this time there is no need for yet another committee. The ADPC is should already be able to take care of this role and is compensated for it.

[0x_ultra]

[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For [Full scope]

Rationale:

[Non-Constitutional] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Venture Initiative

I’m voting “For”. This is a well put together proposal and the budget is not too high. I have the same concerns raised by the other comments above on the fact that there are already quite a few similar initiatives (specifically m&a) and there is no rush to keep opening new ones before we see the results, but given the relatively low cost it is still worth exploring this pilot phase. I do hope to see the proposal be refined before going on tally and the above delegate’s comments be addressed.

[0x_ultra]

Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum

Platform: Tally

Vote: Against

Rationale:

Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum

I will be voting “Against” Although on Snapshot my vote was in favour of the proposal passing, the change in budget allocated to salaries and extra costs as well as all the discussions that went on in the forum and delegate chats makes it uncomfortable to let such a proposal pass. The required budget is obviously extremely high and many issues that have been raised remain unclear. The specifics of the funding are extremely vague for something that has been crafted and planned over the last 6 mo…

[0x_ultra]

Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal

Platform: Tally

Vote: For

Rationale:

Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal

Voting “FOR” Increasing the threshold to 9/12 will enhance Arbitrum’s security.

[0x_ultra]

ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights

Platform: Tally

Vote: For

Rationale:

Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom

I will be voting in favour (FOR) this proposal choosing the 1M option. Open-source is a subject I hold dear and it makes sense for Arbitrum to sometimes fund initiatives for not only its own ecosystem but the industry as a whole. As @maxlomu mentioned, 1M ARB should be enough funding for them to succeed. Thanks @Immutablelawyer for putting this proposal together.

[0x_ultra]

Election of STEP Program Manager

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: steakhouse.financial 100%

Rationale:

STEP Program Manager Applications

I voted 100% for Steakhouse first because of their strong experience with DAOs, making it a good candidate. On the top of that, proven oversight with Maker is a good sign of their competence. Despite being the highest cost, their fixed pricing model and the value they offer make them a worthwhile choice.

[0x_ultra]

AIP: BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For

AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment.

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For

AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Operational cost sentiment.

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: For

Rationale:

AIP: BOLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum

Voting in favor. This proposal enhances security and decentralization via permissionless validation. I only see benefits from its implementation.

[0x_ultra]

Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: Against

Rationale: I am voting ‘against’. The idea is actually interesting but some aspects and their potential outcome remain unclear. I think that the cost is too high and there is no adequate risk assessment.

[0x_ultra]

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives

Platform: Tally

Vote: For

Rationale:

Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives (UPDATED)

On Tally I am in favor of the implementation for the same reasons that I mentioned in the previous post. I also appreciate that the concerns over the fee rebate rate were taken into consideration in the updated version of the proposal.

[0x_ultra]

[Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: Against

Rationale:

Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal

Voting “against”. This is a really interesting initiative that could definitely benefit the DAO. It aligns with Arbitrum’s values, it offers support to developers, provides diversity in terms of programs and promotes the ecosystem as a whole. However, I share a lot of the doubts raised by other delegates above. The size of the grant and operational costs seem very high for something so experimental and that partially overlaps with other initiatives. Some of the points that the program wants to …

[0x_ultra]

Multisig Support Service (MSS) Elections

Platform: Snapshot

Votes and Rationale:

[RFC] Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)

I believe the following 12 people are strong candidates for the MSS: @cattin @JoJo @defipm @Griff @Frisson @CastleCapital @AlexLumley @Matt_StableLab @limes Sinkas Sov and finally myself Good luck everyone~!

[0x_ultra]

ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO

Platform: Snapshot

Vote: Against

Rationale:

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

I voted “against”, while the website and the goals are interesting, I think that the costs are too high compared to the potential value of this. In my opinion we should focus on already existing platforms like Foundation website and others. As others have mentioned above, I also recommend to apply for grants if you want to rework on it. Best of luck!