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.