Summary: Following the implementation of the Arbitrum DDA Program 2.0 and the allocation of funds, we've encountered challenges related to price fluctuations of Arb tokens. Due to this volatility, the total amount received in Arb tokens fell short of the intended budget. Out of the proposed $4 million, we only received $3.397 million.
To mitigate this shortfall and ensure the program's effectiveness, we propose an additional funding of $1 million. This additional funding will provide a buffer against future price fluctuations and enable us to fully execute the program as originally intended. Any surplus funds will be returned to the DAO. This was mentioned in the initial proposal extension of the DDA grants program via Questbook here, that if we fall short of the total funds needed we will intiate an additional fund request.
Background and Justification: Upon the launch of the Arbitrum DDA Program 2.0, we encountered price fluctuations in Arb tokens, which affected the total amount received. Despite our efforts to anticipate and mitigate such risks with a 30% buffer in the initial proposal, the actual amount received fell short of our proposed budget post transferring to USDC. This shortfall poses a challenge to the effective execution of the program and as noted on the main proposal, we mentioned an additional proposal to request for additional funds incase such an event transpired.
Proposal Details:
Conclusion: The success of the Arbitrum DDA Program 2.0 is crucial for the growth and development of the Arbitrum ecosystem. By securing additional funding, we can proceed with the program as intended with the initial budget. We remain committed to transparency, accountability, and the responsible utilization of funds for the benefit of all stakeholders involved.
Summary: Following the implementation of the Arbitrum DDA Program 2.0 and the allocation of funds, we've encountered challenges related to price fluctuations of Arb tokens. Due to this volatility, the total amount received in Arb tokens fell short of the intended budget. Out of the proposed $4 million, we only received $3.397 million.
To mitigate this shortfall and ensure the program's effectiveness, we propose an additional funding of $1 million. This additional funding will provide a buffer against future price fluctuations and enable us to fully execute the program as originally intended. Any surplus funds will be returned to the DAO. This was mentioned in the initial proposal extension of the DDA grants program via Questbook here, that if we fall short of the total funds needed we will intiate an additional fund request.
Background and Justification: Upon the launch of the Arbitrum DDA Program 2.0, we encountered price fluctuations in Arb tokens, which affected the total amount received. Despite our efforts to anticipate and mitigate such risks with a 30% buffer in the initial proposal, the actual amount received fell short of our proposed budget post transferring to USDC. This shortfall poses a challenge to the effective execution of the program and as noted on the main proposal, we mentioned an additional proposal to request for additional funds incase such an event transpired.
Proposal Details:
Conclusion: The success of the Arbitrum DDA Program 2.0 is crucial for the growth and development of the Arbitrum ecosystem. By securing additional funding, we can proceed with the program as intended with the initial budget. We remain committed to transparency, accountability, and the responsible utilization of funds for the benefit of all stakeholders involved.
This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB
The second iteration of this proposal received some feedback from delegates [here]. which was not included in this iteration.
This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB
The second iteration of this proposal received some feedback from delegates [here]. which was not included in this iteration.
As a DAO, we should take this is an opportunity presented to us by the market to rapidly iterate on the learnings as opposed to bridging the gap and continuing with a version which can present further governance overhead.
This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB
The second iteration of this proposal received some feedback from delegates [here]. which was not included in this iteration.
This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB
The second iteration of this proposal received some feedback from delegates [here]. which was not included in this iteration.
As a DAO, we should take this is an opportunity presented to us by the market to rapidly iterate on the learnings as opposed to bridging the gap and continuing with a version which can present further governance overhead.
to clarify: the questbook initial proposal has always been USD denominated, both in funding and in costs. We requested a certain amount with a 30% buffer hoping it would have sufficed. That said, in the previous proposal as stated above there was exactly the clause about either giving back any additional fund after conversion, or asking for what was left to ask.
to clarify: the questbook initial proposal has always been USD denominated, both in funding and in costs. We requested a certain amount with a 30% buffer hoping it would have sufficed. That said, in the previous proposal as stated above there was exactly the clause about either giving back any additional fund after conversion, or asking for what was left to ask.
So one of the reasons for the fall in the value of ARB is the increase in the amount of funds allocated for grants. This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB
So one of the reasons for the fall in the value of ARB is the increase in the amount of funds allocated for grants. This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB
