This will be the main communication thread for Vertex’s Arbitrum DAO votes.
Proposal: Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)
Type: Snapshot, closing Mar 29, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: While we would like to see more metrics included to judge the success of incentive programs, we believe that maintaining momentum in attracting users to Arbitrum is important.
More feedback here: Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge) - #22 by Vertex_Protocol
Proposal: Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
Type: Snapshot, closing Mar 26, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Tally has a strong record of facilitating governance work. We believe that it makes sense to continue to help facilitate that.
More feedback here:
Proposal: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program
Type: Onchain, vote ending Apr 6 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We abstained from this vote as there were changes made to the proposal between Snapshot and Tally which we don’t feel were communicated well enough. While the increase in expenditure was relatively small, we don’t want this to set precedent for governance processes.
Proposal: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0
Type: Onchain, vote ending Apr 12, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Retroactive funding with no clear metrics to base success on is not a sustainable practice. However, we recognize that these members provided value with their contributions over the past few years, much of which is hard to quantify now. We value the people who help keep the community afloat, and believe that they should be rewarded. However, we would like to note that this is a situation which we do not expect to be in very often, and would like to see a framework for giving rewards retroactively if this is something the DAO wants to do going forward.
Proposal: Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
Type: Onchain, vote ending Apr 12, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: This proposal has not changed since the Snapshot vote where we voted ‘for’. We continue to support this effort.
Proposal: Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request
Type: Onchain, vote ending Apr 20, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: The first phase of Questbook’s DDA program was successful, and we feel the additional resources in this proposal are reasonable given the program’s history.
Proposal: LTIPP Council Screening Period Results
Type: Multiple Snapshot votes, closing Apr 16, 2024
Votes: Mostly ‘for’ with 4 abstain votes
Reasoning: We appreciate and support the work of the council in helping filter these proposals, relying on their expertise we largely voted ‘for’ on most proposals, with a few abstains where we felt details were not as strong as they could be.
Proposal: Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
Type: Snapshot, closing Apr 23, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: The problems with governance participation in DAOs are well known, and we think this is an interesting attempt to help resolve these issues. The authors have also incorporated much of the feedback that was given.
Proposal: Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy
Type: Snapshot, closing Apr 24, 2024
Vote: 100% for Fund with 1,000,000 ARB each
Reasoning: Both DEF and Coin Center are performing important and highly specialized services which benefit everyone in the space. We’re happy to help work towards our shared successes, and believe that this size will make a large enough impact to help give them room to operate comfortably. One thing we will be watching for are updates to the DAO from both of these groups regarding work that has been done - while it may not be directly related to Arbitrum, we would like to know what funds have been used towards.
Proposal: Subsidy Fund for Security Services
Type: Snapshot, closing Apr 25, 2024
Vote: 50% 1 cohort of 8 weeks (2 months) for a total fund size of $2.5 million, 50% 2 cohorts of 8 weeks each (4 months) for a total fund size of $5 million
Reasoning: There are still details to be ironed out before this proposal goes to an onchain vote, but directionally we believe that a subsidy fund for protocols to ensure security would be very valuable for the ecosystem. While the ADPC is given a lot of power in this proposal, the reasoning behind it is valid. We split our vote as we were unsure whether a 2 month period would be long enough to draw all the conclusions we need but could certainly see it working in either time period.
Proposal: Post Council Feedback LTIPP Proposals
Type: Snapshot, various closing dates
Reasoning: We reviewed the feedback that was provided by the council on each protocol’s application, and evaluated whether the proposed changes made enough of a difference. In most cases, we found that resubmitted proposals had made changes that were significant enough to address council member’s concerns and were worth moving forward.
Proposal: GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels)
Type: Snapshot, closing May 2, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: While we did not attend the GovHack event in Denver, participants speak positively about it about it and seem enthusiastic about another one. We’re happy to support the creation of spaces to continue ideation and development of initiatives on Arbitrum.
Proposal: Grant Request - Curve Finance
Type: Snapshot, closing May 3, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Ideally, this proposal could have been part of one of the official incentive programs. However, given the structure of the request and the willingness to match funds, we believe that holding it back for that reason would not beneficial to the DAO. We’re happy to see a major player like Curve bring a new product to Arbitrum.
Proposal: Proposal for Approval of DeDaub as the ADPC Security Advisor
Type: Snapshot, closing May 9, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We appreciate the effort the committee has put in to find a subject matter expert to help with relevant decisions, and trust their judgement on an advisor. We can find no immediate reason to raise any concern and are happy to support the committee’s suggestion.
Proposal: Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)
Type: Onchain, closed May 5, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Same as the Snapshot vote: Vertex Delegate Communication Thread - #2 by Vertex_Protocol
Proposal: GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels)
Type: Onchain, closed May 19th, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Same as the Snapshote vote: Vertex Delegate Communication Thread - #9 by Vertex_Protocol
Proposal: Stargate STIP Bridge Challenge
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Approve Funding
Reasoning: Despite administrative issues causing them to not receive a first STIP round, Stargate has played a major role in Arbitrum’s ecosystem. The change in approach to incentives show adaptation to the needs of the chain and we appreciate the focus on helping the transition to native USDC.
Proposal: Dolomite STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Approve Funding
Reasoning: Dolomite had strong metrics, the concern around this proposal was the oARB vesting mechanism. We believe that it’s a valid incentive model that encourages users to remain engaged with Arbitrum in the long term.
Proposal: Savvy DAO STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Approve Funding
Reasoning: The concern that was brought up by the ARDC was around their bond program. We believe this incentive mechanism is ok to use, and encourages long term alignment with Arbitrum. We would like to note that while this mechanism is fine, we think retroactively changing proposed models needs to be done carefully, if at all, and communicated well.
Proposal: Tide STIP Bridge Challenge
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Reject Funding
Reasoning:
Maximum Funding Size:
Maximum funding requests under this bridge grant are capped based on a percentage of the prior funding received under STIP:
- Greater than 500k ARB: may make a funding request of up to 50% of their prior funding.
- Less than or equal to 500k ARB: may make funding requests up to 100% of their prior funding, capped at 250k ARB.
Requested Grant Size: 80k ARB
How much are you requesting for this STIP Bridge proposal?
100K ARB
Proposal: Furucombo STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Reject Funding
Reasoning:
Maximum Funding Size:
Maximum funding requests under this bridge grant are capped based on a percentage of the prior funding received under STIP:
- Greater than 500k ARB: may make a funding request of up to 50% of their prior funding.
- Less than or equal to 500k ARB: may make funding requests up to 100% of their prior funding, capped at 250k ARB.
Requested Grant Size:
59,500 $ARB
7. How much are you requesting for this STIP Bridge proposal?
350,000 ARB
Proposal: Socket Bridge STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Reject Funding
Reasoning: Following the ARDC’s concerns around a lack of reporting.
Proposal: Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)
Type: Snapshot, ends May 28, 2024
Vote: 1. Implement MSS and Reporting, 2. Implement MSS, 3. Abstain, 4. Against
Reasoning: The DAO is paying too much for signers currently and we think this proposal addresses that in a reasonable way. While feedback from delegates has been taken into account, we would like to see a little more around mitigation of centralization risks.
Proposal: Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties
Type: Snapshot, ends May 29, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Tasks like these require the ability to move quickly, something the DAO is not currently built to do. These research questions are especially important to get started on as fast as possible to further inform future spending around incentive programs. We’re comfortable with the council using their expertise to suggest topics and appraise any proposed research projects.
Proposal: KyberSwap STIP Bridge Challenge
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: The exploit is an unfortunate situation, we appreciate the steps they have taken since then to minimize the impact to the DAO, but this also means there isn’t good data to evaluate.
Proposal: Stake DAO STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: KYC issues resulted in a program that wasn’t what the team intended. We feel they shouldn’t be punished for factors outside of their control but unfortunately the nature of their adapted program means data is hard to evaluate. We would encourage them to reapply for funding in either the next incentive program or independently once they have more data to work with.
Proposal: Boost (Prev. RabbitHole) STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: The first round had high sybil activity and usage dropped off after incentives ended. The team has acknowledged the sybil problems and are implementing changes and the targetting of farcaster users is also interesting. We would like to see some higher baseline usage of the protocol before allocating another 500k ARB.
Proposal: Umami Finance STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Approve Funding
Reasoning: Has shown strong performance metrics and the capital it attracted has been sticky even after incentives stopped. The team has shown adaptability in their proposal with their incentive mechanism being more straightforward this time, though we believe oARB was also a valid mechanism that aligned users with Arbitrum long term.
Proposal: Thetanuts Finance STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Approve Funding
Reasoning: ARDC comment was about protocol owned liquidity, this was mentioned in their original application and they’ve offered to exclude POL from receiving rewards this round.
Proposal: Angle DAO STIP Addendum
Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We think diversification in stablecoins is important, but with usage dropping off after the incentives ended, we’re not sure whether the increases in metrics are worth the cost to the DAO. Would definitely encourage them to submit an application for STEP, like the ARDC mentioned.
Proposal: OpenOcean STIP Addendum
Type: Type: Snapshot, ended May 27, 2024
Vote: Approve Funding
Reasoning: Originally voted to abstain due to a lack of data, but after conversations with the team, we’re comfortable here.
Proposal: Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund
Type: Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 6, 2024
Vote: Against
Reasoning: In a perfect world without restrictions on time or resources we could have separate committees for each part of a program, however we are voting against this as we agree that a creation of a sub-commitee would introduce delays, complexity, and cost that the DAO would be better without. However, we would like to strongly suggest that the ADPC follows through with the suggestion to present selected recipients to the DAO for optimistic approval as mentioned in the link below. We believe this can be done regardless of whether a module is ready or not as STIP Bridge recipients recently went through a similar process without needing one.
Proposal: AIP: Nova Fee Router Proposal (ArbOS 30)
Type: Snapshot, ended June 6, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Automating fee collection to be delivered to the DAO treasury reduces operational complexity.
Proposal: AIP: Activate Stylus and Enable Next-Gen WebAssembly Smart Contracts (ArbOS 30)
Type: Snapshot, ended June 6, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Allowing developers to work on Arbitrum in languages other than Solidity opens the doors to many more potential builders.
Proposal: AIP: Support RIP-7212 for Account Abstraction Wallets (ArbOS 30)
Type: Snapshot, ended June 6, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Account abstraction will play a large role in how users interact with crypto in the future. This proposal allows Arbitrum to keep pace with other major L2s in this regard.
Proposal: Grant Request - Curve Finance
Type: Onchain, ended May 28, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Same as snapshot (Vertex Delegate Communication Thread - #9 by Vertex_Protocol)
Proposal: Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime
Type: Onchain, ended Jun 3, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Tooling of this kind helps keep Arbitrum aligned with the ethos of decentralization, and allows everyday users to benefit from it when it’s really needed.
Proposal: Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO
Type: Onchain, ended Jun 2, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We voted for on this, as we believe that the DAO looking into M&A is worth the time and resources. We’re not sure if there are enough viable targets, but look forward to the results of this pilot to judge whether this should be a direction the DAO continues to go.
Proposal: Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum
Type: Onchain, ended Jun 7, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We voted ‘for’ on this, but would consider voting along with a proposal to repeal or revise if it is put forward. We think that Arbitrum can use another identity along with being the chain for DeFi, and gaming could very well be this vertical. We also acknowledge that supporting game development can be an expensive process, and that it would take significant funding to give teams a fair shot. However, we think that spending this much needs a high level of consensus from the DAO, and with almost 25% of the votes on this proposal being against, we think there may be some work to be done to bring other delegates on board before continuing with the venture.
Proposal: Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
Type: Onchain, ended Jun 9, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Security should always be prioritized, and this is a relatively simple change to help keep the chain safer.
Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights
Type: Onchain, ended Jun 9, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Same as snapshot (Vertex Delegate Communication Thread - #8 by Vertex_Protocol)
Proposal: Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 11, 2024
Vote: For with no IRL event
Reasoning: We initially weren’t sure about this but after some clarification in the comments we’re voting for on Snapshot. We agree that piecemeal venture programs can have merit when presented individually but it becomes hard to get a bigger view of how they each integrate with each other and the DAO. A framework to evaluate future funds would be appreciated. We’re voting against an IRL event for now, it may make sense at some point in the future but we believe the initial work can be done online.
Proposal: AIP: BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 13, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Permissionless validation moves us closer to the ideals of decentralization.
Proposal: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment.
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 13, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: The foundation is an entity that can be trusted to run the first validator. The DAO also retains the ability to claw back funds if needed.
Proposal: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Operational cost sentiment.
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 13, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: The foundation will not be receiving anything from this and it makes sense to set aside some funds in case another entity steps up to run a validator.
Proposal: Election of STEP Program Manager
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 11, 2024
Vote: 100% steakhouse.financial
Reasoning: We’re familiar with their work and are comfortable with them leading this program.
Proposal: Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 17, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We voted abstain instead of against to signal that we think there is merit to this, but it’s not the right time for it now. We don’t believe that using ARB as the collateral here would make much sense, but it was mentioned in the comments that the system would also be able to be used with other tokens. We think this is something that could be worth exploring further down the line as more work is done around DAO budgeting and treasury management.
Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 20, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We abstained on this as well to show that we aren’t against it entirely, however we have similar concerns to other delegates around the ability for the DAO to benefit from the upside in the near term. We understand it may be beneficial to get started on this process before all the details are figured out, but with there still being so much uncertainty the cost is too high right now.
Lastly, we had some technical issues and didn’t get to vote in the round that was just run on https://app.grantships.fun/ but we think the platform is interesting and would like to see other programs in different verticals run on it after the end of this one.
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 26, 2024
Vote: Against
Reasoning: Other delegates have expressed this concern enough, but we agree that while the work done so far is certainly useful, the proposed cost to the DAO is too high.
Proposal: Multisig Support Service (MSS) Elections
Type: Snapshot, ended Jun 27, 2024
Votes:
- Cattin
- Sinkas
- StableLab
- 0xMims
- Alex Lumley
Reasoning: We based these on a mix of factors such as personal familiarity, activity in the DAO, and technical skills.
Proposal: Approval of STEP committee recommendations
Type: Snapshot, ended Jul 10, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We’re familiar with most of the organizations, and believe they’re strong choices. Where we aren’t as familiar, we trust the committee’s experience and judgement. We’re especially excited about bringing in Securitize, and are glad to see this effort move forward.
Proposal: Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations
Type: Snapshot, ended Jul 18, 2024
Vote: Improving predictability with no approval process
Reasoning: Efforts to make it easier for delegates to engage with governance are always appreciated. We don’t think the approval process is necessary at this point, but the DAO can revisit this idea in the future if needed.
Proposal: Furucombo’s Misuse of Funds
Type: Snapshot, ended Jul 26, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: While Furucombo did eventually return the funds, there are still questions around why the funds were sent to Kraken in the first place, and the process around the funds being returned did not inspire confidence. We also appreciate the Foundation’s clarifications around who would be banned and think it’s fair that it would be limited to founders.
Proposal: Pilot for a Questbook Jumpstart fund for problem definition and DAO improvement
Type: Snapshot, ended Jul 22, 2024
Vote: Against
Reasoning: We voted against this as a complete proposal, but we do agree that there are parts that would be worth exploring further. We think that it can be useful for the DAO to take a moment to reexamine the current problems it’s facing, figure out prioritization, and actionable steps to make any improvements. However, we think this needs to be done in a careful way so that we can make sure the DAO is making useful progress, and not just surfacing areas where work is done with little impact on the wider DAO. The DAO already has an open ended grants program running, and we don’t think the creation of this program as proposed adds something the DAO needs right now. While we voted against this, we do want to affirm that we think there could be benefit in engaging in the beginnings of a sense making process. If this results in something worth exploring further, we think a larger proposal could make more sense.
Proposal: Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain
Type: Snapshot, ended Jul 31, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We understand the concerns around Ethereum alignment, but we believe that this is a necessary move. Other ecosystems will have l2s built on them one way or another, and allowing the use of the Arbitrum tech stack lets us ensure that at least some of the value generated from these chains is brought back to a DAO that we can help steward to maintain it’s goals of scaling Ethereum. However, this doesn’t mean that the DAO should be shifting from it’s roadmap based on Ethereum, and we expect that to remain the primary focus. We would also like more clarity around the Arbitrum Developer Guild, but do not feel it is a large enough concern to vote against this proposal at this time.
Proposal: Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) Council Voting
Type: Snapshot, ended Aug 1, 2024
Vote: 25% Immutable Lawyer, 25% CoinflipCanada, 25% Devansh Mehta, 25% David Bolger
Reasoning: As the two members of the council that were already picked both have a BD background, we felt it was best to focus on another category. We are most familiar with the candidates in the governance section and made our choices based on observing past work done by the candidates. Though it falls outside governance, we also included David after some personal conversations.
Proposal: Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO
Type: Snapshot, ended Aug 1, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We voted for this at the temp check stage but would like to see some more discussion and possible changes made to the proposal before it’s posted to Tally. We think the Entropy team is doing good work, and that retaining their services would be beneficial to the DAO. However, there are aspects of this proposal that we would like to see tweaked slightly. As other delegates have mentioned, we’re not sure that a full team of 10 people will be necessary. We don’t think Entropy will hire for the sake of it, but we think it could be good to have some lightweight mechanism for expansions to the team to be approved by the DAO. One possible option is to have a quick report from Entropy when they want to expand the team beyond specific breakpoints. Reports could be as simple as explaining what work the team is not able to do with their current capacity, and what they’re trying to get out of the next hire. These can be approved optimistically to allow Entropy the space to expand into roles that are clearly necessary, while still allowing the DAO a chance to evaluate whether the scope of Entropy’s work is appropriate and if additional members are truly needed.
Proposal: [Non-constitutional] Incentives Detox Proposal
Type: Snapshot, ended Aug 8, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: As we mentioned in our rationale for the STIP Bridge proposal, we never believed the DAO’s current style of incentive distribution was sustainable in the long term. We welcome this opportunity to take a step back and take another look at the analyses that have already been done as well as potentially any new ones and look forward to collaboratively developing a strategy that is healthy for the ecosystem in the long term.
Proposal: ARB Staking: Unlock ARB Utility and Align Governance
Type: Snapshot, ended Aug 15, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We initially were unsure about this proposal when it defined where rewards were coming from and how they would be redistributed but are much more comfortable with this version which leaves these open to DAO decisions later. We think the framework that is being suggested for the token is flexible enough to proceed with, and look forward to discussions around these topics. One point we would like to note is that there should be special consideration towards measures of being an active delegate, as this can mean a wide range of things and should be inclusive enough that it doesn’t skew towards one kind of delegate.
Proposal: Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains
Type: Snapshot, ended Aug 15, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We think that tracking orbit chain data is certainly useful and growthepie have shown competency through their existing products. As indicated by other delegates, the price also seems fair. The only reason we did not vote for on this proposal is that we’d like to see this run as an RFP, as there have been questions around scaling and we’d like to see if there are any alternative solutions. If none are presented, we’d be happy to vote in favor of growthepie’s submission to that process.
Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Governance Analytics Dashboard
Type: Snapshot, ended Aug 15, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: This is another vote we’re abstaining on but directionally support. We think Curia’s dashboard can add value and shows details that are not already covered by others, but would want to see this proposed as a collaboration with Karma as opposed to an entirely new dashboard.
Proposal: [Constitutional] ArbOS 31 “Bianca” (Stylus, RIP-7212 Support, Nova Fee Router)
Type: Onchain, ended Aug 15, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We supported all these pieces individually on Snapshot, so we’re voting yes on the bundle as well. Some short reasonings on the pieces below.
Proposal: Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)
Type: Onchain, ended Aug 15, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Unchanged since temp check, we believe that this is effective in helping the DAO reduce unnecessary costs.