kohan

My thoughts on Arbitrum's AIP-1 as someone generally 𝗙𝗢𝗥 ✅ the proposal, albeit not in its current form. Why? Read on. 👇 (Note: opinions are my own and aren't representative of TreasureDAO as the single largest Arbitrum delegate who responded AGAINST ⛔️ the proposal on behalf of its ~28k delegates.) Links to the proposal and some ref responses are below. — 1️⃣ 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 There's no question about this. The ratification vs. proposal, future/past tense, articulation, not educating people unaware about the DAO setup process and the necessary parameters, requirements (eg. the majority of people!), etc could have been much better. This has all been acknowledged by Arbitrum Foundation and I'm confident things will improve. (I for one would love more details re: the Special Grants, oversight, and to see vesting there.) Also note: Foundation ≠ Offchain Labs. The team is being assembled while the ship is being flown. Transferring knowledge, getting up to speed with the culture of the community, building, and working towards decentralization all at the same time is not an easy feat. Kudos to all involved as this is not easy. There's a lot of hyperbole re: "pulling the rug out from under holders / selling out to benefit the team and VCs / fake DAO". This is all sensationalized and also not at all constructive. Things are not as simple as "let's just decentralize it all!". There's a starting point to everything and the journey is progressive. And Arbitrum has always operated for the benefit of the entire ecosystem. They aren't stopping now right when they're getting started. 2️⃣ 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗴𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 @stonecoldpat0 put it well but there are important steps that need to be taken to establish the DAO and decentralize Arbitrum. With 291k holders, there's no practical reality to decide everything via a vote and so the Foundation was created to kick everything off. Without the Foundation, we'd be left with the Spiderman meme and a standstill arguing over the airdrop parameters, drafting the initial Constitution, etc. RE: entity formation and structuring, there are things that just legally need to be done first. Doesn't mean it's static and can't change via the DAO. 3️⃣ 𝗗𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 While the proposal is far from perfect, the Arbitrum Foundation kicked things off with a desire for a greater degree of decentralization at the onset compared to its peers. Arbitrum asked for the community's ratification re: funding while others did not. In the other cases, the decision was made for their communities who have since benefited from explosive growth of their ecosystems. If Arbitrum had done the same, would we be having this conversation or would we not have batted an eye? 4️⃣ 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹/𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲 This is an insanely competitive environment and in order for Arbitrum to succeed, it needs to be able to accommodate the natural course of business that is largely incompatible with on-chain voting and transparency. The examples listed are sound: • Polygon: Nike + Starbucks • Optimism: Coinbase's Base chain These partnerships would have been impossible to reveal, discuss, negotiate, and approve through a DAO. Imagine being a Fortune 500 company putting in the reps to build atop Arbitrum only for the DAO to shut them down at the eleventh hour. Enormous waste of time and resources - impractical. Not to mention leaking trade secrets to competitors. — There's a lot of nuance here and this may be unpopular but IMO there needs to be a degree of initial trust in the Foundation to serve Arbitrum paired with ongoing activism and scrutiny. I want to see more from them but I also want Arbitrum to be as successful as possible. To do that, they need to be armed with what they need to crush it.