[Proposal] - Grants: SpecOps Roundtable

Reading time saved: 13 minutes

11 replies, 871 views, 28 likes



The proposal by Dk3 suggests forming a Special Operations Roundtable within the Arbitrum ecosystem to manage a grant program for funding projects, with community-elected stewards and a focus on transparency and accountability. Community reactions are mixed, with some questioning the need for a new group and its alignment with existing frameworks, while the next steps involve community review and a potential formal vote for ratification.

What is this about?

The discussion revolves around a proposal by Dk31 to create a Special Operations Roundtable within the Arbitrum ecosystem. This Roundtable would be responsible for drafting, ratifying, and administering a recurring grant program aimed at funding impactful projects throughout 2024. The Roundtable would consist of nine stewards, eight elected by the community and one lead steward, Dk3, who would only vote in the case of a tie. The stewards would serve six-month terms, with elections occurring every six months. The proposal outlines a pilot grant program that would allocate 25 million ARB per season across projects, with an additional 600,000 ARB for operating costs, and a total budget of 200k ARB for onboarding support contributors.

The motivation for this proposal is to address governance fatigue, chaotic proposals, and the lack of a robust grant program. The Roundtable would focus on larger grants, as opposed to microgrants covered by other initiatives like AIP-3, and would aim to streamline processes and reduce infrastructure costs for Arbitrum Projects. The proposal includes a detailed implementation timeline, election process, and budget considerations, with a focus on transparency, community involvement, and public accountability.

How is the community reacting?

The community has mixed reactions to the proposal. Jengajojo2 questions the need for creating new groups and suggests incorporating the plan into existing mandates. Englandzz4 seeks clarification on the alignment with the existing grant framework, while Tnorm5 expresses support but clarifies non-involvement. Limes8 inquires about transparency and community involvement, and Sminem10 and VxToasted11 support the idea of a specialized team for grants. Concerns are raised about the necessity of the Roundtable, its alignment with existing frameworks, and the specifics of its operation and budget.

Why this is positive?

  • The Roundtable aims to fund impactful projects and catalyze development within the Arbitrum ecosystem1.
  • It proposes a model with oversight by proof of work and proof of integrity pods, along with elected stewards, to build trust and ensure public accountability1.
  • The Roundtable will focus on larger grants, aiming to streamline processes and reduce infrastructure costs for Arbitrum Projects7.
  • Decisions will be made transparently, with recorded or streamed Roundtable Calls and regular updates on the forum8.

Why this is negative?

  • There is concern about the necessity of creating new groups when existing mandates could potentially cover the proposed strategies2.
  • Questions arise about how the Roundtable aligns with the existing grant framework and the specifics of roles, responsibilities, and processes4.
  • The operational budget and the amount allocated for Smart Contract Audits may need re-evaluation12.

Next actions

The next actions include the community reviewing the proposal details, providing feedback, and potentially moving towards a formal vote for ratification. If the framework reaches quorum and is ratified, the Roundtable will proceed under the approved framework. If not, the initiative will cease. The implementation timeline aims to have the grant framework ratified by the end of the year, set up assessment pods post-ratification, and complete three seasons of funding in 20241.

Posted a month ago

Last reply a month ago

Summary updated 9 days ago

Last updated 03/12 08:01