Reading time saved: 7 minutes
2 replies, 591 views, 15 likes
L2BEAT, an independent company analyzing Ethereum Layer 2 solutions, is actively involved in the governance of the Arbitrum community, participating in discussions, voting on proposals, and hosting open calls. While their engagement is generally seen as positive, their opposition to certain proposals could potentially cause disagreements within the community.
This discussion revolves around the governance activities of L2BEAT, an independent company that provides analysis and evaluations of Ethereum Layer 2 solutions, in the Arbitrum community. The company, represented by Krst and Sinkas, actively participates in discussions about protocol challenges and issues, votes on different proposals, and regularly updates the community about their actions. They have voted on a variety of proposals, ranging from accelerating Arbitrum's development to updating the Security Council Election start date for a security audit. They also host Open Governance Calls and Office Hours on Google Meets to communicate with the community.
The community seems to be actively engaged in the governance process, with L2BEAT's governance team receiving feedback on various proposals and hosting calls to facilitate further discussions. They have had extensive discussions with Cattin regarding a proposal from SEED Latam, which they believe is a significant topic for the DAO. They also review and provide feedback on several other proposals, including the introduction of a new role in governance - Governance Facilitator, and a Delegate Incentive System for ArbitrumDAO.
L2BEAT's active participation in the governance of Arbitrum is a positive sign of a healthy and engaged community. Their regular updates, votes on proposals, and hosting of Open Governance Calls and Office Hours show a commitment to transparency and open communication. Their willingness to discuss and provide feedback on various proposals indicates a proactive approach to improving the system.
While L2BEAT's active participation is generally positive, there have been instances where they voted against certain proposals. For example, they voted against the proposal for Arbitrum to be the official sponsor of Ethereum Mexico 2023, citing the channel through which the proposal was pursued as the reason. They also voted against the community Arbiter Proposal and the Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) proposal, citing high requested amounts and the existence of a similar proposal respectively. These instances could potentially lead to disagreements within the community.
Posted 3 months ago
Last reply a month ago
Summary updated a month ago
Last updated 06/12 00:44