Reading time saved: 6 minutes
5 replies, 922 views, 40 likes
The Arbitrum community is engaged in a debate about the direction of its DAO, focusing on $ARB token distribution, the DAO's role, and the potential introduction of a Governance Facilitator role. While some progress is noted, concerns persist about ecosystem stagnation, potential centralization, communication gaps, and decision-making processes within the DAO.
This discussion revolves around the Arbitrum ecosystem and its DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). The community is debating the progress and direction of the DAO, with a particular focus on the distribution of the $ARB token, the role of the DAO in the ecosystem, and the introduction of a Governance Facilitator role. There are also concerns about the DAO's decision-making process, the potential for centralization, and the communication gap between the ArbitrumDAO and the Arbitrum Foundation.
The community's reaction is mixed. Some members, like Soby1, are frustrated with the perceived stagnation of the ecosystem and the lack of grants and incentives to grow it. Others, like Menaskop2, argue for patience and caution against ad hoc solutions that could lead to centralization. DisruptionJoe3 acknowledges these concerns but also highlights progress made, such as the approval of the Plurality Labs proposal. Tnorm3 is driving a short-term solution effort, while Plurality Labs is working on a long-term framework for liquidity incentives. Axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth4 and Cattin4 propose the introduction of a Governance Facilitator role to improve processes and communication. However, Toyagev3795 raises concerns about the current state of the DAO and potential conflicts of interest.
The discussion is positive as it shows an active and engaged community that is willing to debate and work towards solutions. The approval of the Plurality Labs proposal and the work on a short-term solution by Tnorm3 are signs of progress. The proposal by Axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth and Cattin4 to introduce a Governance Facilitator role could improve communication and processes within the DAO.
The negative aspects of the discussion include concerns about the perceived stagnation of the ecosystem, the potential for centralization, and the communication gap between the ArbitrumDAO and the Arbitrum Foundation. There are also concerns about the decision-making process within the DAO, with Toyagev3795 highlighting that the fate of every vote lies in the hands of a few delegates. Potential conflicts of interest with grant framework collectives are another issue raised.
Posted 4 months ago
Last reply 4 months ago
Summary updated a month ago
Last updated 08/12 04:40