Web3 Citizen Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
21

Snapshot: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead

We will be voting for without retroactive.

Following our opinion as voiced on this comment, we still have some concerns over the hourly rates and would prefer simplifying the scope to ensure it becomes a go-to informative resource. We believe the ArbitrumHub can solve a need for the DAO and will be supporting the initiative at the snapshot stage.

Additionally, retroactive funding of $40k should demonstrate more impact than the initiative has achieved in its current state.

22

Snapshot: Strategic Objective Setting (SOS)

We are voting for this proposal.

We strongly agree with the rationale behind this proposal: converging around goals, contributor submissions around main focus areas, all while maintaining the ability to propose initiatives outside. This approach can help ArbitrumDAO push forward aligned initiatives.

23

Snapshot: Nova Fee Sweep

We are voting FOR this proposal.

This is quite a simple one-time-action to sweep historical Nova transaction fees from L1TimelockAlias address. It makes sense to transfer these left over fees into the new collection system.

24

Tally: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

We are voting for, following the same rationale given at the Snapshot vote. We hope this proposal will continue diversifying the treasury and fostering growth of RWA.

25

Tally: OpCo

After deliberation, we are voting for this proposal

Given we have changed our stance since the Snapshot vote and the polarizing proposal, we believe it warrants an extended rationale:

As voiced in our Snapshot rationale, we believe this proposal has the potential to improve operational efficiency in the DAO and ensure continuation of tasks an initiatives across the DAO. We believe the proactive nature expressed in the proposal is necessary to carry a complex initiative such as OpCo. Reviewing the proposal we come back to the fact that ultimate control for spending if exceeds certain caps, approval of extending on to other verticals as well as approval of providers is retained in the DAO.

On the above quote, our preliminary stance is against extending OpCo mandate to other verticals (at least in its initial term and after analyzing the outcomes of this term). Ideally, we would have liked a fixed mandate–not just abstaining from the Investments vertical. We also appreciate that entropy has taken delegate’s feedback and specified a scope for OpCo after establishing the entity. Additionally, we note that OAT elections will be elected through the DAO and its key role in the development of OpCo.

We maintain our concern voiced in the initial rationale:

But we believe that ultimately the DAO has the ability to check OpCo and monitor its activities if it were ever to extend itself. The long timeline for the initial term still rings concern for us. The goal is ambitious, but so is the budget requested. Ultimately, we are viewing this as a high stakes challenging initiative, with the potential to streamline our operations and smooth processes for the DAO outweighing concerns.

26

Snapshot: Increase the Stylus Sprint

We are voting FOR this proposal.

We’re not always in favor of increasing budgets to fit amount of applicants. But in this case, as voiced here, after reviewing the applicaitons and their potential impact we see that the program had excellent and high quality submissions. The additional budget will cover funds to boost Stylus growth and adoption. A strong vote in favor!

27

Tally: Arbitrum D.A.O.

We are voting FOR this proposal.

As voiced here and here, we reaffirm our support for the continuation of the program with the same rationale: we support the inclusion of orbit as a new domain, inclusion of final checkpoint, reporting updates.

28

Snapshot: Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal

We are voting against.

The proposal is not clear enough in its deliverables and metrics to measure success. The budget is not clearly broken down to understand how spending will be allocated in each section and how Farstar arrived to those numbers. The success of the proposal hinges on the right selection of Arbitrum experts. Without the right kind of experts there is no way to ensure the right kind of peer led support. However, we do not know who they are or how they are/were selected. At this stage we do not see the proposal bringing value to the ecosystem.

29

Snapshot: Arbitrum OS Callisto

We are voting FOR this proposal

We are in favor of the proposed upgrade to support Pectra. We are relying on the provided explanations for including or excluding EIPs, though we did seek clarity on potential issues regarding calldata cost differentials. Based on our understanding, we see no reason not to support this proposal.

30

Snapshot: Audit Program

We are voting FOR this proposal.

We support the core goal of the proposal: providing financial assistance for early-stage projects to secure audits for their contracts. Establishing a functional program to facilitate audits is key and most of its benefits are lost if its not continuously available. We find this program’s structure more direct and intuitive for builders.

We were unable to attend the first office hours call, but we reviewed the discussion from the second call. We do not see this proposal as overstepping the ADPC, given that the Foundation would be running the program as a service using DAO funds and its not like the ARDC is currently running a program focusing on audits (nor is the ARDC proposing to run an audit program in parallel).

From our perspective, the structure of the program is straightforward, and its scope is clear, though it might make sense to lower the initial budget. Say with with a budget reduced to around $6M, the number of subsidized projects would still be 60-70 projects over the year. The process of integrating learnings, establishing clear dialogue around proposing this alternative program could also have been handled better. After reviewing AF’s comments in the proposal, we are also reassured by the committee’s composition particularly the involvement of AF and OCL in overseeing audit pricing, auditor selection, and project matchmaking. Overall the concern that remains for us is the budget size but we are inclined to support the proposal at this stage.

31

Tally: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Budget

We are voting FOR this proposal

Reaffirming our support for this proposal with the same rationale as in Snapshot: The additional 4M budget will cover funds to support the adoption of Stylus and the selected projects demonstrate high quality applications. We’d also like to highlight Entropy’s ongoing effort in re-negotiating budgets during the Snapshot period, with the Moving Stylus application and other participants.

32

Snapshot: TMC Allocation

We are voting for #3 Yes Stablecoin, No ARB strategy**

We want to point out it was a very unconventional way to vote on strategies and resulted confusing at first. That being said, we’d like to thank Karpatkey and Avantgarde for their continuous feedback and clarification on their strategies. We’re voting to deploy the recommended strategy by the TMC (yes stablecoin strategy, no to arb strategy) as it is the path that’s clearest and, after reading the discussion, don’t feel enough confidence that the benefits outweighs risks in the ARB strategy to vote for it. We are definitely supporting our rationale with the recommendation given by the TMC.

33

Tally: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep

We are voting FOR.

After going back to review the original proposal, FAQs, Ed Felten’s Article, Trail of Bits Audit, we are to believe there is no inherent great security risk with the Timeboost implementation. Reviewing different analysis of ARDC members (OZ, Blockworks, Chaos Labs), especially after the latter, our main concern is that we have no full information on how to assess second order effects of the express lane, secondary markets, potential effects on LPs and effects of a small group of actors dominating the auction.

The DAO, however, retains full control to turn off Timeboost through a Snapshot vote if it becomes clear of Timeboost’s adverse effects.

What is clear to us is that this will mean a net positive impact on the DAO and its treasury even with a conservative estimate:

Given we have no way to assess all adverse effects with the available information, our stance is that we should proceed with caution, closely monitoring Timeboost effects and if enough adverse effects are detected, turn off the priority lane. With that in mind we vote for.

34

Tally: Arbitrum Onboarding v2

We are voting abstain.

We are abstaining as in snapshot given our initial involvement in this proposal. Having collaborated with the team we are confident in their ability to execute the program if the vote passes.

35

Snapshot: Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the router

We don’t see an issue in registering the gateway contract in the Router since:

  • The sky custom gateways have been audited through ChainSecurity and Cantina and formally verified through Certora.
  • This type of proposals has been tested before: deploying custom gateways has been done before by Sky and implementation from the Arbitrum side has been done with the RARI proposal.
  • OCL has collaborated on the proposal.

Benefits of implementing the proposed change include seamless bridging USDS and sUSDS through the official bridge and better integration of Arbitrum into stablecoin and Defi ecosystem.

Since we don’t see any reason not to, we are supporting this proposal.

36

Snapshot: GMC’s Preferred Allocations

We are voting FOR, Deploy Capital on this proposal.

Our frame of thinking has mostly been informed by the allocation objectives. We agree with the selection of protocols since they follow the main objective: generate low risk yield. Allocating to battle-tested projects and a conservative approach fits with the intention. In the same vein of thought, the assessment given by the GMC to opt out of looping and LRT allocations makes sense to us, looping positions require closer looking into, tighter management and looking into liquidity of all chosen protocols, as well as endogenous risks in the protocol of choice. Besides this, LRT and looping do not fit the low risk mandate which was one of the GMC objectives.

That being said, much of the initial comments were around specifically the choice of Lido and the choice of non native protocols.

On the first point:

Some have elevated concerns about Lido and this chosen allocation to reflect arbitrum actively choosing to lower decentralization (“>95% of the ETH staked in Lido is still managed by a small set of entities.” “Lido is not very aligned with Ethereum”). Most staked ETH regardless of the chosen protocol is managed by a small set of entities and professional operators dominate in staking and restaking protocols, not just Lido. Additionally, Lido has helped many access staking with lower amounts of ETH and onboard to staking a traditionally hard to access through the staking module. Besides, it’s also a choice that is highly integrated with DeFI and maintains certain exposure to the LRT ecosystem while remaining on the low risk side.

If we’re choosing to bolster returns at low risk, we see Lido (and Aave) as a perfectly good choice – and one that is tried and tested at that. This makes us confident in allocating a large portion of the strategy to them. Choosing these protocols and their strategies do not limit us from adding other strategies in the future.

We don’t know enough about Fluid to confidently assess the protocol. However, the joint application on Lido and Fluid mentions that growing liquidity of ETH on Fluid will grow exposure to other assets and does make Arbitrum a more preferable venue.

On the second and most relevant to the discussion point:

On this point we align closely to comments made earlier in the discussion by Tamara and Castle Capital: striking a balance on Arbitrum Native and Non Native protocols by setting aside a portion. This closely aligns to the second GMC objective. From our perspective, updates on the allocation through a 10% allocation to Camelot (longstanding Arbitrum stakeholder) to offer single side liquidity reflect this balance enough given liquidity risks found in the strategy

Liquidity risk is significant. Arbitrum DAO will be depositing ±800 ETH or $1.8M into a pool with $970K TVL. This will make the Arbitrum DAO the major liquidity provider to this pool at roughly ±67% of all supplied liquidity.

and the smart contract risks documented here. For all these reasons we are voting FOR, Deploy Capital.

37

Tally: Arbitrum Audit Program

We are voting FOR this proposal

We continue to support this proposal as in the Snapshot stage with the same rationale: find it here.

TLDR: Establishing a functional program to facilitate audits is key and most of its benefits are lost if its not continuously available for builders to apply to. We find this program’s structure with the Foundation running it a more direct and intuitive way for builders.

38

Snapshot: TMC Stablecoin allocation

We are voting FOR.

We thank threesigmaxyz for taking feedback and splitting the proposals.
As voiced before when we chose Yes stablecoin, No Arb, we will vote for the Stablecoin Allocation relying mostly on the TMC’s recommendation. The targeted yield by the three chosen providers seems reasonable (ranging in 8-12%) while focusing on USDC and USDT, we trust the track record of selected entities and trust they will deliver.

39

Snapshot: TMC ARB allocation

We are voting Against.

As voiced before when we chose Yes stablecoin, No Arb, we will vote against this allocation relying mostly on the TMC’s recommendation.

Just holding is not ideal, but we don’t feel enough confidence that the benefits (low yield with upper bound of 4% and high yield relying on finding counterparties) justified additional risks when deploying this large amount of capital. We can get behind the idea of reopening applications for ARB allocations in some months to reassess more strategies.

40

Snapshot: OAT Election

We are voting for: Frisson, AJ Warner and 0xRecruiter.

Before explaining our rationale for each candidate we’ll list our key identifiers for valuable OAT members. These are consistent with OAT Key Responsibilities as well as the role description

Identifiers: candidates who have proven experience in running, leading, hiring and scaling teams, strategic know how and operational experience, engaging with internal and external stakeholders, experience in coordinating cross functional teams, have Arbitrum specific context coordinating and building relationships in Arbitrum specific initiatives.

For additional clarity on our perspective: we don’t find that the candidates need necessarily to be connected to the AF to qualify, neither than candidates should not be part of AF or DAO programs to be exempt of conflicts of interest as understood by Paulo, the criteria was the above principles. Given this, our selected candidates ended up having (current or previous) connections in either DAO programs or OCL.

Below we list each selected member and some standout points that makes us confident that they will fulfill OAT position successfully:

AJ Warner

  • Has high context of Arbitrum as OCL’s CSO, where he leads ecosystem efforts and works closely with many teams. He has experience guiding initiatives and building relationships across the Arbitrum action space and Arbitrum stakeholders. This gives us confidence in his ability to handle operational development and strategic coordination with many stakeholders.
  • Mainly: he has a holistic understanding of the operational responsibilities needed for initiatives to “work” in an Arbitrum specific context. OpCo will only be successful if members understand the unspoken strings that tie operations and initiatives together, AJ seems the best candidate for this.

0xRecruiter

  • This candidate was the one with the most experience aligned with the Hiring, Termination, & Authorization responsibility with great experience in recruitment, identifying qualified and mission aligned candidates as proven with his leading hiring on OCL across 5 departments, and before during his time at Binance US. Has experience coordinating across teams and departments, identifying talent needs, onboarding and balancing operations required, all of these points will be key in fulfilling the OAT mandate and providing consistency in DAO programs.
  • Has context of the DAO and technical profiles needed to fulfill key Arbitrum positions and deliver key Arbitrum products.

Frisson

  • Has experience coordinating and building teams with Lucid and Tally, where he also leads in a cross functional role.
  • Has successfully led Arbitrum specific initiatives such as Arb Staking and actively contributed in Arbitrum DAO roles as Communications Chair of ARDC and MSS. He also has great operational experience reporting and communicating with DAO stakeholders. He was the best candidate to fulfill navigating the DAO landscape to ensure initiatives work with and for the DAO.