I'll spare everyone the time of using a lot of words and get to the meat of it.
The Arbitrum foundation has essentially admitted to nullifying the need of governance via the DAO and arbitrarily posted a governance proposal with a vote that didn't matter.
To that end, there is only 1 real solution and it's to issue a buy-back of $ARB (all that was sold and clearly shown what prices, when, and how) and to do so in an orderly manner to regain goodwill from the community.
The buyback period should be done in the same duration that the sell period began (ie from the start of the selling till the last sell) and using a more clean TWAP for the week.
Tail scenarios:
If the foundation doesn't support the proposal and continues to sell $ARB, the bid will evaporate and the token will collapse as selling ~700m more $ARB is incredibly short-sighted for the project and doesn't bear any use for the foundation in the near term.
If the foundation also directly buys back the $ARB without governance, the foundation will clearly show that the project is in fact not decentralized and will (likely) be subject to securities laws.
In the end, the option seems clear. Cease all selling and put the issue to 2 separate votes:
Godspeed.
I'll spare everyone the time of using a lot of words and get to the meat of it.
The Arbitrum foundation has essentially admitted to nullifying the need of governance via the DAO and arbitrarily posted a governance proposal with a vote that didn't matter.
To that end, there is only 1 real solution and it's to issue a buy-back of $ARB (all that was sold and clearly shown what prices, when, and how) and to do so in an orderly manner to regain goodwill from the community.
The buyback period should be done in the same duration that the sell period began (ie from the start of the selling till the last sell) and using a more clean TWAP for the week.
Tail scenarios:
If the foundation doesn't support the proposal and continues to sell $ARB, the bid will evaporate and the token will collapse as selling ~700m more $ARB is incredibly short-sighted for the project and doesn't bear any use for the foundation in the near term.
If the foundation also directly buys back the $ARB without governance, the foundation will clearly show that the project is in fact not decentralized and will (likely) be subject to securities laws.
In the end, the option seems clear. Cease all selling and put the issue to 2 separate votes:
Godspeed.
I'm not sure about Arbitrum being viewed as the darling of the ETH ecosystem. Many large-scale builders on Arbitrum are/were frustrated with the centralization of the network but migrating to other networks is not an easy feat and takes time.
I'm not sure about Arbitrum being viewed as the darling of the ETH ecosystem. Many large-scale builders on Arbitrum are/were frustrated with the centralization of the network but migrating to other networks is not an easy feat and takes time.
There needs to be accountability and restructure. Members in the foundation need to be replaced and the DAO should get an attorney. This is bullshit period.
Wow wow wow - Arbitrum went from the darling of the Ethereum ecosystem for having bootstrapped one of the most active networks without a token to the Web3 villain overnight. Things were poorly handled, true, but hopefully, we don't need to raise pitchforks.
Having personally bootstrapped networks and knowing the pain behind them, here are my two cents. It was a rookie mistake, not so much as builders (they are fantastic), but in how to properly coordinate a community token launch and the level of thoughtfulness needed in handling comms. You'd think doing it after OP would have given them more time to observe and understand the lay of the land (aka token holder mentality). Money worsens everything - the community, the team, the Foundation, etc. Everyone gets defensive and entitled. But it is a necessary evil and one has to learn how to live with it while growing the empire.
Wow wow wow - Arbitrum went from the darling of the Ethereum ecosystem for having bootstrapped one of the most active networks without a token to the Web3 villain overnight. Things were poorly handled, true, but hopefully, we don't need to raise pitchforks.
Having personally bootstrapped networks and knowing the pain behind them, here are my two cents. It was a rookie mistake, not so much as builders (they are fantastic), but in how to properly coordinate a community token launch and the level of thoughtfulness needed in handling comms. You'd think doing it after OP would have given them more time to observe and understand the lay of the land (aka token holder mentality). Money worsens everything - the community, the team, the Foundation, etc. Everyone gets defensive and entitled. But it is a necessary evil and one has to learn how to live with it while growing the empire.
As the Foundation clarified in this post by @stonecoldpat, the overall allocation % was not that different from other ecosystems. The main mistakes they made were primarily:
There is quite a bit to unpack on the second point. Regulatory limitations exist on what can be done after the split of entities, which means teams try to plan for the long run (5-10 years) - not legal or financial advice here. Many teams saw the struggle even the Ethereum Foundation faced with liquidity shortage over the years. There aren't many Vitalik willing to fund via their personal holding. Now it is even harder to do so even if someone wanted to. If we want to give the team the benefit of the doubt, they were likely trying to ensure continuity for an extended period.
Now, I assume this is the Foundation wallet with initial 750M $ARB, it seems they transferred out 50M so far. Relying on personal experience, $50M-$60M in treasury is enough to ensure the Foundation is well capitalized for at least 2-3 years unless they want to go full bazooka like Solana did last few years (remember the $5M hackathon?).
Proposal I don't think buyback or sending the token back to the DAO treasury for another vote is necessarily needed. To truly grow an ecosystem requires a tremendous amount of resources. If you start bickering for a $500k allocation here, a $1M partnership program there, it will go nowhere. But most of the community stress is driven by the uncertainty of the unlock from the 750M. Most people are looking out for their bags, but again necessary evil. So the next step could be a simple unlock schedule that gives the Foundation enough dry powder to maximize success, but that makes sense operationally for the community. No, you don't have $500M in year 1, not even in year 3. Having managed a multi-billion dollar ecosystem, I can tell you I wouldn't even know how to spend that much money in a short time - there are not enough devs/partners unless you are paying $10M for a partnership - something better avoided tbh (remember GameStop?).
Arbitrum was considered the leading scaling solution, this isnt just a black eye for Arbitrum, but for the entire ethereum ecosystem.
The foundation has ZERO credibility after this and regardless of it was malicious intent or not members involved of foundation must be replaced or step down, it’s they only way to move past this.
buyback of governance tokens? When they have no official value to begin with?
i vote to do whatever splitcapital says
Such a dumb take to call the team « grifter » keep speculating
@inversebrah get me in
I think buyback is mandatory, why would team make money when retail is the exit liquidity. I want to believe in real governance.
Right now governance is nothing more then a MEME
It's acknowledging the root issue.
I outlined 2 proposals to fix the issue and save face, either way trust has been eroded.
Insider token allocations and investment rules are the reason why people like CL exist in the first place, it's the failure of the builders and the projects to give people equal chances.
While your proposal makes sense, I think it doesn't really remedy the situation, because "the situation" isn't they sold tokens, that's normal and needed, "the situation" is the DAO has no voting power as it stands now.
Not to mention that the foundation lost all credibility after trying (and up to this point succeeding) to grift the tokens via a meaningless vote and lying about it until the very last moment (see their comments in the AIP-1 discussion where they acted like they hadn't sold the tokens already...until they were caught, at which point they switched to the ratification narrative).
While your proposal makes sense, I think it doesn't really remedy the situation, because "the situation" isn't they sold tokens, that's normal and needed, "the situation" is the DAO has no voting power as it stands now.
Not to mention that the foundation lost all credibility after trying (and up to this point succeeding) to grift the tokens via a meaningless vote and lying about it until the very last moment (see their comments in the AIP-1 discussion where they acted like they hadn't sold the tokens already...until they were caught, at which point they switched to the ratification narrative).
Unfortunately it looks like currently the foundation is made up of grifters who basically drained a part of the liquidity people offered them in exchange for voting power (that as we saw doesn't really exist). So while the buyback is good and they might do it (at least partially) to save face, going forward the fact still stands that the foundation members are grifters. Probably a proposal to replace the foundation members with honest people would be best, but then we'd be stuck with the issue that the grifters should accept the DAO vote that would throw themselves out. Honestly I don't know what to do here, I'm just disgusted with the way they acted.
TL;DR: if this proposal passes and is executed, it might save some peoples' bags, but won't solve the root issue going forward.
Sup lads, Gary G here. It's already over for you guys. My boys are closing in on the Offchain Labs headquarters as we speak. The only solution is to follow what SplitCapital suggested. Or you can say byebye to all of your money!
People like CL are the reason building in crypto sucks.
hi, i noticed you said (as a bagholder) in your forum post
thanks for being my exit liquidity meow
There needs to be accountability and restructure. Members in the foundation need to be replaced and the DAO should get an attorney. This is bullshit period.
Wow wow wow - Arbitrum went from the darling of the Ethereum ecosystem for having bootstrapped one of the most active networks without a token to the Web3 villain overnight. Things were poorly handled, true, but hopefully, we don't need to raise pitchforks.
Having personally bootstrapped networks and knowing the pain behind them, here are my two cents. It was a rookie mistake, not so much as builders (they are fantastic), but in how to properly coordinate a community token launch and the level of thoughtfulness needed in handling comms. You'd think doing it after OP would have given them more time to observe and understand the lay of the land (aka token holder mentality). Money worsens everything - the community, the team, the Foundation, etc. Everyone gets defensive and entitled. But it is a necessary evil and one has to learn how to live with it while growing the empire.
Wow wow wow - Arbitrum went from the darling of the Ethereum ecosystem for having bootstrapped one of the most active networks without a token to the Web3 villain overnight. Things were poorly handled, true, but hopefully, we don't need to raise pitchforks.
Having personally bootstrapped networks and knowing the pain behind them, here are my two cents. It was a rookie mistake, not so much as builders (they are fantastic), but in how to properly coordinate a community token launch and the level of thoughtfulness needed in handling comms. You'd think doing it after OP would have given them more time to observe and understand the lay of the land (aka token holder mentality). Money worsens everything - the community, the team, the Foundation, etc. Everyone gets defensive and entitled. But it is a necessary evil and one has to learn how to live with it while growing the empire.
As the Foundation clarified in this post by @stonecoldpat, the overall allocation % was not that different from other ecosystems. The main mistakes they made were primarily:
There is quite a bit to unpack on the second point. Regulatory limitations exist on what can be done after the split of entities, which means teams try to plan for the long run (5-10 years) - not legal or financial advice here. Many teams saw the struggle even the Ethereum Foundation faced with liquidity shortage over the years. There aren't many Vitalik willing to fund via their personal holding. Now it is even harder to do so even if someone wanted to. If we want to give the team the benefit of the doubt, they were likely trying to ensure continuity for an extended period.
Now, I assume this is the Foundation wallet with initial 750M $ARB, it seems they transferred out 50M so far. Relying on personal experience, $50M-$60M in treasury is enough to ensure the Foundation is well capitalized for at least 2-3 years unless they want to go full bazooka like Solana did last few years (remember the $5M hackathon?).
Proposal I don't think buyback or sending the token back to the DAO treasury for another vote is necessarily needed. To truly grow an ecosystem requires a tremendous amount of resources. If you start bickering for a $500k allocation here, a $1M partnership program there, it will go nowhere. But most of the community stress is driven by the uncertainty of the unlock from the 750M. Most people are looking out for their bags, but again necessary evil. So the next step could be a simple unlock schedule that gives the Foundation enough dry powder to maximize success, but that makes sense operationally for the community. No, you don't have $500M in year 1, not even in year 3. Having managed a multi-billion dollar ecosystem, I can tell you I wouldn't even know how to spend that much money in a short time - there are not enough devs/partners unless you are paying $10M for a partnership - something better avoided tbh (remember GameStop?).
Arbitrum was considered the leading scaling solution, this isnt just a black eye for Arbitrum, but for the entire ethereum ecosystem.
The foundation has ZERO credibility after this and regardless of it was malicious intent or not members involved of foundation must be replaced or step down, it’s they only way to move past this.
buyback of governance tokens? When they have no official value to begin with?
i vote to do whatever splitcapital says
Such a dumb take to call the team « grifter » keep speculating
@inversebrah get me in
I think buyback is mandatory, why would team make money when retail is the exit liquidity. I want to believe in real governance.
Right now governance is nothing more then a MEME
It's acknowledging the root issue.
I outlined 2 proposals to fix the issue and save face, either way trust has been eroded.
Insider token allocations and investment rules are the reason why people like CL exist in the first place, it's the failure of the builders and the projects to give people equal chances.
While your proposal makes sense, I think it doesn't really remedy the situation, because "the situation" isn't they sold tokens, that's normal and needed, "the situation" is the DAO has no voting power as it stands now.
Not to mention that the foundation lost all credibility after trying (and up to this point succeeding) to grift the tokens via a meaningless vote and lying about it until the very last moment (see their comments in the AIP-1 discussion where they acted like they hadn't sold the tokens already...until they were caught, at which point they switched to the ratification narrative).
While your proposal makes sense, I think it doesn't really remedy the situation, because "the situation" isn't they sold tokens, that's normal and needed, "the situation" is the DAO has no voting power as it stands now.
Not to mention that the foundation lost all credibility after trying (and up to this point succeeding) to grift the tokens via a meaningless vote and lying about it until the very last moment (see their comments in the AIP-1 discussion where they acted like they hadn't sold the tokens already...until they were caught, at which point they switched to the ratification narrative).
Unfortunately it looks like currently the foundation is made up of grifters who basically drained a part of the liquidity people offered them in exchange for voting power (that as we saw doesn't really exist). So while the buyback is good and they might do it (at least partially) to save face, going forward the fact still stands that the foundation members are grifters. Probably a proposal to replace the foundation members with honest people would be best, but then we'd be stuck with the issue that the grifters should accept the DAO vote that would throw themselves out. Honestly I don't know what to do here, I'm just disgusted with the way they acted.
TL;DR: if this proposal passes and is executed, it might save some peoples' bags, but won't solve the root issue going forward.
Sup lads, Gary G here. It's already over for you guys. My boys are closing in on the Offchain Labs headquarters as we speak. The only solution is to follow what SplitCapital suggested. Or you can say byebye to all of your money!
People like CL are the reason building in crypto sucks.
hi, i noticed you said (as a bagholder) in your forum post
thanks for being my exit liquidity meow
There's likely no other option that is "clean".
The Foundation already circumvented the point of the DAO by bringing the vote to the DAO after essentially saying the DAO vote didn't matter (when the DAO rejected the proposal).
(as a bagholder)
mostly agree (as an investor)
not sure if its the best decision but seems like 1 of the better
There's likely no other option that is "clean".
The Foundation already circumvented the point of the DAO by bringing the vote to the DAO after essentially saying the DAO vote didn't matter (when the DAO rejected the proposal).
(as a bagholder)
mostly agree (as an investor)
not sure if its the best decision but seems like 1 of the better
Hear me out guys... Arbitrum Classic $ARC let's roll it back turbo
Hear me out guys... Arbitrum Classic $ARC let's roll it back turbo
