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.
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.
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.
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.
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 mandateânot just abstaining from the Investments vertical. We also appreciate that entropy has taken delegateâs 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.
Weâre 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!
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.
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.
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.
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 programâs 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 AFâs comments in the proposal, we are also reassured by the committeeâs 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.
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. Weâd also like to highlight Entropyâs ongoing effort in re-negotiating budgets during the Snapshot period, with the Moving Stylus application and other participants.
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, weâd like to thank Karpatkey and Avantgarde for their continuous feedback and clarification on their strategies. Weâre voting to deploy the recommended strategy by the TMC (yes stablecoin strategy, no to arb strategy) as it is the path thatâs clearest and, after reading the discussion, donât 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.