Vertex Delegate Communication Thread

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.

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

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.