Proposal: Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)
Type: Snapshot, ended Dec 19, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: We think this is strong foundation that the DAO can use as its north star. Given Arbitrum’s capabilities with orbit chains, we believe the change to the language in the purpose section to allow for ecosystems beyond Ethereum was a good move. We’re looking forward to seeing the SOS develop after the break.
Proposal: Treasury Management V1.2
Type: Onchain, ending Dec 20, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: Same as previous.
Proposal: Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program
Type: Onchain, ending Dec 21, 2024
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We abstained from this as we only tentatively voted for on Snapshot and weren’t confident enough in this proposal to support it onchain. While we still directionally support the idea of investing in hackathon winners, we weren’t fully satisfied with the discussion around the budget and while we understand the explanation given of timing, we believe this went to Tally far too quickly.
There were two proposals that we intended to vote on but are currently still only partially signed in our multisig queue and won’t count when they are executed. These are below.
Proposal: OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Type: Snapshot, ended Dec 19, 2024
Vote: For
Reasoning: This proposal would be making large changes to the operational flows of the DAO but we believe that a layer between all the ongoing initiatives is needed and will be invaluable as the DAO continues to grow and even more programs are started. However, we share some of the concerns from other delegates around centralization risks. We feel that the success of this initiative depends on the OAT and the level of oversight it is truly providing over the OpCo. While we are looking forward to potential elections around this, we aren’t completely sure whether we will have candidates that we feel are willing to be critical enough of the OpCo.
Proposal: Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025
Type: Snapshot, ended Dec 19, 2024
Vote: For, without POAP
Reasoning: Like other delegates, we would have liked to see this go through an established program like Questbook, but understand the constraints around timing. However, if that is the reason why the this proposal wasn’t able to be submitted to it, we would like to see the budget come down just a little more to meet the cutoff of $50k as it’s our understanding this would be the maximum they could request under the program. We think cutting the VIP access and tickets would be a good place to start and would get the budget very close to where we feel it needs to be.