Attendend a lot of calls and activity around SOS and treasury management, and the new vision for governance in Arbitrum, which I am actively participating.
I just seen this proposal and went to Karma and saw almost all delegates are losing voting power. Seeing token holders lose confidence in the ecosystem should be ringing alarm bells for all of us. The dropping delegate voting power is a governance issue and a market signal that holders are selling and moving elsewhere.
I support lowering the quorum threshold as a practical response to our current reality. Let’s be clear though - this is treating a symptom, not the disease. The real problem is t…
I’m voting in favor of lowering the quorum. As mentioned before, this is treating the symptom, not the disease. I’m very aligned with what @mcfly said - we need to incentivize token holders to delegate their tokens, and delegates need to be incentivized for doing a good job voting. I still love the idea I shared when I first started to engage on Arbitrum: delegates should be paid
on locked ARB so their incentives are aligned with token holders.
I’m voting “Only top-up the HCP”. The original agreement was made in stables, and with ARB’s value fluctuation, it’s only fair to honor that commitment to get to see the results after the experiment.
As Klaus pointed out, we’re creating too many parallel funding processes when we should be optimizing through OPCO. We need to focus on the long-term governance solutions coming with OPCO rather than creating more bureaucratic layers.
I’m voting “Only top-up the HCP”. The original agreement was made in stables, and with ARB’s value fluctuation, it’s only fair to honor that commitment to get to see the results after the experiment.
As Klaus pointed out, we’re creating too many parallel funding processes when we should be optimizing through OPCO. We need to focus on the long-term governance solutions coming with OPCO rather than creating more bureaucratic layers.
Looks like we’re chasing the same governance white rabbit!
This proposal hits on the same pain point I’ve been obsessing over - that gap between forum noise and actual proposal improvements. Seems like we’re in a friendly race to fix governance (may the best tool win, but the ecosystem definitely wins regardless).
This aligns with work I’m planning to execute on my recent questbook proposal where I’m focusing on similar challenges in governance optimization.
Good to see more builders tacklin…
From a market-oriented standpoint, the Quadratic Accelerator hits all the right notes. It transforms ecosystem funding into an organic experiment and I love it!.
Really aligned with this direction. qacc is the kind of experiment we need more of — market-driven, lean, and focused on real outcomes without relying on artificial support, it’s really interesting how the clear winner of season 1 was x23ai a product that probably all delegates are using.
In most ecosystems, public goods funding ends …
Saying “anyone who launches a token loses focus” is just not accurate. A clear counterexample is Ethereum. Are you seriously claiming Vitalik’s team lost focus or wasted time navigating regulatory minefields?
There are many successful projects that launched tokens early and are clear winners today. You should really do some research before making such broad, misleading claims. Let’s stay rational and base our arguments on evidence.
Don’t let your thinking be guided by failure stories, better …
What is not accurate is your question to chatgpt, the ico itselt its launching a token before the product.
Ill leave it there i dont want to explain what i belive someone is trying to do/build.
Title: Dispute
Username: Zeptimus
I’m submitting a formal dispute regarding the April 2025 DIP scoring for my delegate address 0x3ef1b0db4d10d2e3ce06699c0bd4ef0aaf897614. Two specific posts I made were not scored at all, despite offering original and timely contributions to key governance discussions:
Comment on “Builders’ Voices Needed”
Comment on Gabriel’s SOS submission
These comments were early, informed, and aligned with the rubric’s criteria for “presence in discussions.” They add…
Just voted YES on The Watchdog proposal on tally. This is the kind of market-driven accountability mechanism Arbitrum needs.
What stands out here is how The Watchdog elegantly applies several of Ostrom’s principles for managing shared resources:
Monitoring by community members: By creating financial incentives for community sleuths, we’re establishing decentralized monitoring that Ostrom identified as crucial for sustainable governance. This turns every community member into a potential guard…
Voted YES on Tally. I believe staying aligned with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade is crucial for Arbitrum’s growth.
Petra is running well on mainnet, and I trust the Arbitrum devs to deliver another solid implementation. Let’s do it!
Voting NO on Snapshot. Appreciate the work Entropy put into this — the structure is thoughtful and the intent is clear.
That said, the proposal lacks strong accountability. Those ammount of ARB with no skin in the game from recipients, no clear clawbacks if TVL drops post-incentives, and centralized control over allocations feels risky.
This creates artificial demand that likely won’t last. Can’t support in its current form, and remain open to a revised version with better safeguards.
Hey Klaus! I updated the original post with a great video of Griff giving a TL;DR on how to participate in the MVV process and a link to Livia’s post explaining the process, right below this part:
Many of the links are broken but what I mostly wanted to communicate is that this process shouldn’t be paused as you pointed. If we want people to engage, the process should be simpler and Arbitrum deserves a north star asap.
This is just off the top of my head and probably a lot of work, but if I w…
I can see the tremendous work that went into developing these strategic objectives and appreciate the effort of bringing them all together @tempe.
At the same time, I truly believe that this is a lot of information to digest for anyone trying to engage and will prevent key stakeholders from being part of it. We need to have an easier way to engage for the overall goal of SOS. That being said, I love the direction of this post getting into the details and how we will accomplish all our goals. An…
I see massive potential here for addressing Arbitrum’s core governance bottlenecks.
Our current governance is painfully bureaucratic and slow. Agents can support meaningful participation from key contributors while dramatically reducing governance overhead costs.
The infrastructure around AI governance could make our entire SOS process significantly smoother. There’s substantial value waiting to be captured through better coordination and decision-making tools.
I see two distinct paths here a…