Web3 Citizen is a research collective with the mission to empower the Web3 community by making complex topics accessible. As a community-centered project, we all contribute to expanding our collective knowledge and commit to open sourcing our insights. Members of our team have contributed to Arbitrum governance under the delegate address ocando.eth (@ocandocrypto), we look forward to collaborating in shaping the future of the Arbitrum ecosystem with Web3 Citizen.
As delegates, we commit to aligning with ArbitrumDAO’s mission, making informed decisions, and participating in governance to effectively drive growth.
Core Issues:
Decentralization: Minimizing the reliance of any single actor by building a resilient, trustless protocol.
Governance: Prioritizes collaborative decision-making that is fair, transparent, and accountable whilst upholding the protocols best interests.
Builders: Focused on empowering builders with the necessary tools, resources, and support to help them thrive and create innovative applications.
Community: Believes in building a strong community by engaging with people locally and globally while fostering collaboration across regions.
In this thread we’ll share our thoughts and rationale.
Onchain vote: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
We are voting FOR this proposal, following our voting and rationale during the Snapshot vote:
The ArbitrumDAO currently has no dedicated budget planning for events and this proposal can bring a working framework to plan events in the coming year. We also agree that this proposal furthers the ability for the DAO to represent itself.
We’re also happy to see community feedback incorporated into the final proposal!
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot stage.
Council structure and recommendations
While we do understand the hesitation behind creating two entities to forward treasury management, we believe given the broad nature of the stated goals it does make sense to have two teams to provide multiple viewpoints on investment options for the DAO to review and approve. This could also have been achieved with two teams operating under a single committee.
We appreciate that the proposal ensures that the DAO retains a final say on whether on not to approve the committee’s recommendations.
Selection of members
Reading through other delegates’ input we believe, in this instance, the process could have benefited from two separate proposals (creation of committees and ratifying its members.) Trusting Entropy’s due diligence regarding the candidates, we will vote in favour.
Additional Specifics:
As mentioned by other delegates, the inclusion of indicators and metrics to be followed by the committees would give us more confidence to vote FOR in the Tally vote.
We believe this proposal holds the necessary components to ensure hackathon projects can continue to work on their concepts and, given validation and fit, continue development with the support of the ecosystem.
Assessment criteria and budget seem reasonable. And we’re generally in support of the thinking and planning behind the proposal:
Re: extending selection
We would not lower the threshold for this pilot, as that would require more mentorship and hands-on effort for those projects still in the exploratory stage. Though maybe in future iterations it would make sense.
Snapshot vote: Restitution For Extensively Delayed ArbitrumDAO Minigrant Winners
We will vote against this proposal
On the one hand, the payouts was delayed due to inefficiencies. On the other hand, the proposal sets a precedent on restitution of funds that we are not convinced by and, as many highlighted, the original amount was denominated in non stable tokens, price fluctuation –even in the worst scenario– should be expected.
Ultimately, we agree with sentiments expressed by other delegates in that the DAO should learn from this experience moving forward, choose grant managers accordingly and clearly structure payout timelines.