What is this about?

This discussion revolves around a proposal (AIP-7) put forth by Arbitrum to address three identified issues in the Arbitrum One Governance system¹. The first issue is related to the airdrop distributor fee sweep address, which is proposed to be updated to the DAO Treasury's address. The second issue involves the sequencer gas fee reimbursement parameterization, where two parameters are incorrectly configured, leading to gas funds being incorrectly charged to end users. The proposed solution is to adjust the fixed cost associated with including a transaction and disabling the "amortization cost cap". The third issue is a bug in the L1 Core Governance Timelock scheduleBatch, which can lead to the failure of creating retryable tickets. The proposed fix involves upgrading the implementation of the L1ArbitrumTimelock¹. The fixes have been implemented through Governance Action contracts and audited by Trail of Bits with no issues identified¹.

How is the community reacting?

The community has shown a positive reaction to the proposal. Mhiztasolid expressed support for the proposal². Fred announced that the proposal is now live for voting on-chain³. Krst, representing L2BEAT’s governance team, stated that they are voting in favor of the proposal⁵. Michigan_Blockchain also voted in favor of the proposal, citing that AIP-7 implements the necessary governance parameters and the audit was satisfactory⁶. ITUblockchain, representing the delegation team, expressed their appreciation for the proposal and the work done by the Arbitrum System. They are voting in favor of the proposal⁷.

Why this is positive?

The proposal is seen as a positive development as it addresses key issues in the Arbitrum One Governance system. The community appreciates the clear and workable solutions provided in the proposal. The fact that the fixes have been audited by Trail of Bits and no issues were identified adds to the credibility of the proposal. The proposal also includes the transfer of the remainder of the airdrop to the treasury, which is seen as a positive move.

Why this is negative?

There are no negative aspects identified in the discussion. The proposal has been well-received by the community and is currently live for voting on-chain. The community members have expressed their support and are voting in favor of the proposal.