This proposal seeks funding from the Arbitrum DAO to support an "Attackathon," a large-scale security audit event organized by the Ethereum Foundation and hosted on the Immunefi platform. The Attackathon will focus on enhancing the security of the Ethereum protocol through three phases: education, active code hunting, and result evaluation. The initiative aims to raise over $2 million, with $500,000 already committed from the Ethereum Foundation. This effort is crucial for ensuring the stability and security of Ethereum, which is vital for maintaining the reliability of projects on Arbitrum.
As a Layer 2 on Ethereum, Arbitrum relies heavily on the security of the Ethereum protocol. Given Arbitrum's EVM compatibility, vulnerabilities in Ethereum could potentially impact Arbitrum as well. Conducting a comprehensive security audit contest at this time is critical due to the recent major hard forks that have introduced significant changes to Ethereum.
A key component of this Attackathon is the development of educational materials that cater to all levels of security knowledge. This educational program will feature live technical walkthroughs and detailed documentation developed by the Ethereum Foundation, client teams, Solidity developers, and Immunefi, covering a broad scope that includes client, specification, and solidity compiler bugs. By educating security researchers, the Attackathon will cultivate a community of researchers capable of identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities across the Ethereum and Arbitrum ecosystems. This increased awareness and participation in Ethereum's security ultimately benefits the Arbitrum community by ensuring the continued reliability and safety of the underlying blockchain infrastructure.
The Attackathon aligns with the Arbitrum community's mission to promote a secure and scalable Ethereum ecosystem. By investing in this initiative, Arbitrum will help Ethereum’s security, which directly impacts Arbitrum’s scalability and user trust. Moreover, the educational component of the Attackathon will benefit Arbitrum by upskilling security researchers, providing them with the knowledge and tools needed to conduct thorough audits and improve security across the network.
Additionally, Arbitrum can benefit from the collaborative efforts of the Ethereum Foundation and Immunefi, positioning itself as a proactive leader in the Ethereum community. Participation in the Attackathon provides Arbitrum with the opportunity to engage with top security researchers and improve its security posture. As a sponsor, Arbitrum will gain visibility and credibility among developers and users, further solidifying its reputation as a secure and forward-thinking.
Platforms and Technologies:
Design Decisions:
Related Work:
The primary role of the Arbitrum DAO in this initiative is to provide funding support for the Attackathon. By contributing to the reward pool, Arbitrum will ensure that the event attracts top-tier security researchers and maximizes its impact on the security of the Ethereum protocol. Additionally, the Arbitrum community can assist in promoting the Attackathon to raise awareness and encourage participation.
The Arbitrum DAO has two options for sponsoring the Attackathon:
Unicorn Partners (+75 ETH Commitment) (limited to two sponsors)
Panda Partners (+30 ETH Commitment)
By supporting the Attackathon, Arbitrum can leverage the findings to ensure its network remains robust against vulnerabilities. This initiative not only enhances security but also demonstrates Arbitrum's commitment to the ecosystem.
This proposal seeks funding from the Arbitrum DAO to support an "Attackathon," a large-scale security audit event organized by the Ethereum Foundation and hosted on the Immunefi platform. The Attackathon will focus on enhancing the security of the Ethereum protocol through three phases: education, active code hunting, and result evaluation. The initiative aims to raise over $2 million, with $500,000 already committed from the Ethereum Foundation. This effort is crucial for ensuring the stability and security of Ethereum, which is vital for maintaining the reliability of projects on Arbitrum.
As a Layer 2 on Ethereum, Arbitrum relies heavily on the security of the Ethereum protocol. Given Arbitrum's EVM compatibility, vulnerabilities in Ethereum could potentially impact Arbitrum as well. Conducting a comprehensive security audit contest at this time is critical due to the recent major hard forks that have introduced significant changes to Ethereum.
A key component of this Attackathon is the development of educational materials that cater to all levels of security knowledge. This educational program will feature live technical walkthroughs and detailed documentation developed by the Ethereum Foundation, client teams, Solidity developers, and Immunefi, covering a broad scope that includes client, specification, and solidity compiler bugs. By educating security researchers, the Attackathon will cultivate a community of researchers capable of identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities across the Ethereum and Arbitrum ecosystems. This increased awareness and participation in Ethereum's security ultimately benefits the Arbitrum community by ensuring the continued reliability and safety of the underlying blockchain infrastructure.
The Attackathon aligns with the Arbitrum community's mission to promote a secure and scalable Ethereum ecosystem. By investing in this initiative, Arbitrum will help Ethereum’s security, which directly impacts Arbitrum’s scalability and user trust. Moreover, the educational component of the Attackathon will benefit Arbitrum by upskilling security researchers, providing them with the knowledge and tools needed to conduct thorough audits and improve security across the network.
Additionally, Arbitrum can benefit from the collaborative efforts of the Ethereum Foundation and Immunefi, positioning itself as a proactive leader in the Ethereum community. Participation in the Attackathon provides Arbitrum with the opportunity to engage with top security researchers and improve its security posture. As a sponsor, Arbitrum will gain visibility and credibility among developers and users, further solidifying its reputation as a secure and forward-thinking.
Platforms and Technologies:
Design Decisions:
Related Work:
The primary role of the Arbitrum DAO in this initiative is to provide funding support for the Attackathon. By contributing to the reward pool, Arbitrum will ensure that the event attracts top-tier security researchers and maximizes its impact on the security of the Ethereum protocol. Additionally, the Arbitrum community can assist in promoting the Attackathon to raise awareness and encourage participation.
The Arbitrum DAO has two options for sponsoring the Attackathon:
Unicorn Partners (+75 ETH Commitment) (limited to two sponsors)
Panda Partners (+30 ETH Commitment)
By supporting the Attackathon, Arbitrum can leverage the findings to ensure its network remains robust against vulnerabilities. This initiative not only enhances security but also demonstrates Arbitrum's commitment to the ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/83?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/82?u=tane
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/80?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/83?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/82?u=tane
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/80?u=winverse
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-36: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-36
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-36: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/79
Supporting Ethereum and the security of Ethereum which underpins Arbitrum is probably one of the most fundamental investments we can make to help secure the protocol from the outside
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/25?u=griff
See https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/75?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/44
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/71?u=0x_ultra
Poor value for money and unclear outcomes
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/68?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/37
Good scope and co partners for the initiative
The sponsorship of Attackathon is reasonable, go and get them.
Proposals worthy of support 1. Support the direction of the proposal: ArbitrumDAO sponsoring Attackathon helps both Ether and Arbitrum security. Ether's security directly affects Arbitrum, so it's a win-win. 2. Clear goals and transparency: The proposal has clear targets for the number of participants and the number of reports, and there will be regular reports to the community, so transparency is good. 3. Funding allocation: Immunefi waived fees and ensured that all funds were used to reward security researchers, which was good. And it makes sense that the remaining funds are used to support other auditing programs. Suggestions: 1.-more AMA or community discussions could be organized so that more people can participate and understand the progress. 2- the education component was well done, and it is recommended to find ways to expand the impact of this to more security researchers.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/66?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/65?u=0xdonpepe
We would prefer there to be more tangible or specifically promised benefits to sponsorship than those provided. The Ethereum Foundation’s provision of 25% of the $2m fundraising goal, coupled with the modest sizing (~$80,000) of the request is enough for us to move to a positive vote on this item.
Panda Partners program supporting the proposal Rationale 1、in terms of eth security and the developer community as a whole, is conducive to active participation in the entire ETH ecosystem 2, should enhance Arbitrum's position as a leader in the evm ecosystem. Suggestions: 1、The initial amount is not easy to be too much, and is decided according to the effect after the feedback of the activity.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/62?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/61?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/20?u=larva
https://bit.ly/3AHFY8t
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/48
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/47?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/46?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/39?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/38?u=mcfly
Proposal needs refining, but in favour of supporting given it's temp-check and pre-fund allocation.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/29?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/22?u=tekr0x.eth
Other than marketing, not sure I agree on the benefits of this initiative.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/20?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/17?u=bruce
Support, in terms of eth security and the developer community as a whole, is conducive to active participation in the entire ETH ecosystem
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/15?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/14?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/13?u=ezr3al
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-36: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-36
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-36: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/79
Supporting Ethereum and the security of Ethereum which underpins Arbitrum is probably one of the most fundamental investments we can make to help secure the protocol from the outside
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/25?u=griff
See https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/75?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/44
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/71?u=0x_ultra
Poor value for money and unclear outcomes
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/68?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/37
Good scope and co partners for the initiative
The sponsorship of Attackathon is reasonable, go and get them.
Proposals worthy of support 1. Support the direction of the proposal: ArbitrumDAO sponsoring Attackathon helps both Ether and Arbitrum security. Ether's security directly affects Arbitrum, so it's a win-win. 2. Clear goals and transparency: The proposal has clear targets for the number of participants and the number of reports, and there will be regular reports to the community, so transparency is good. 3. Funding allocation: Immunefi waived fees and ensured that all funds were used to reward security researchers, which was good. And it makes sense that the remaining funds are used to support other auditing programs. Suggestions: 1.-more AMA or community discussions could be organized so that more people can participate and understand the progress. 2- the education component was well done, and it is recommended to find ways to expand the impact of this to more security researchers.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/66?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/65?u=0xdonpepe
We would prefer there to be more tangible or specifically promised benefits to sponsorship than those provided. The Ethereum Foundation’s provision of 25% of the $2m fundraising goal, coupled with the modest sizing (~$80,000) of the request is enough for us to move to a positive vote on this item.
Panda Partners program supporting the proposal Rationale 1、in terms of eth security and the developer community as a whole, is conducive to active participation in the entire ETH ecosystem 2, should enhance Arbitrum's position as a leader in the evm ecosystem. Suggestions: 1、The initial amount is not easy to be too much, and is decided according to the effect after the feedback of the activity.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/62?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/61?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/20?u=larva
https://bit.ly/3AHFY8t
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/48
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/47?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/46?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/39?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/38?u=mcfly
Proposal needs refining, but in favour of supporting given it's temp-check and pre-fund allocation.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/29?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/22?u=tekr0x.eth
Other than marketing, not sure I agree on the benefits of this initiative.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/20?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/17?u=bruce
Support, in terms of eth security and the developer community as a whole, is conducive to active participation in the entire ETH ecosystem
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/15?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/14?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ethereum-protocol-attackathon-sponsorship/26122/13?u=ezr3al
gTrade is in favor of the proposal. As Ethereum's most active L2, it's important that we contribute to supporting Ethereum's security. Additionally, the amplification of Arbitrum's support by the Ethereum Foundation will create a positive signal, highlighting Arbitrum's alignment with Ethereum and commitment to its security.
gTrade is in favor of the proposal. As Ethereum's most active L2, it's important that we contribute to supporting Ethereum's security. Additionally, the amplification of Arbitrum's support by the Ethereum Foundation will create a positive signal, highlighting Arbitrum's alignment with Ethereum and commitment to its security.
The Treasure ARC is generally supportive of this idea, viewing any effort to enhance security as a positive step. Regarding the specific proposal, we are aligned with the Panda Tier, as it effectively balances supporting the concept with an appreciation for the importance of Arbitrum in preserving it's capital to spend on other initiatives.
From our perspective, it is crucial for the Arbitrum DAO to actively participate in public good initiatives, especially in areas like overall security. While metrics like TVL rankings are often highlighted, the EVM and L2 communities should be seen as a unified ecosystem. Initiatives like this, which benefit the entire community, deserve our support. We appreciate that Arbitrum has this opportunity to demonstrate that we're not competing in this realm but rather collaborating for mutual benefit. We are eager to see the outcomes of the Hackathon and hope it leads to significant advancements in EVM security. Additionally, the post-event Immunifi Hack will be an exciting event to observe and participate in.
The Treasure ARC is generally supportive of this idea, viewing any effort to enhance security as a positive step. Regarding the specific proposal, we are aligned with the Panda Tier, as it effectively balances supporting the concept with an appreciation for the importance of Arbitrum in preserving it's capital to spend on other initiatives.
From our perspective, it is crucial for the Arbitrum DAO to actively participate in public good initiatives, especially in areas like overall security. While metrics like TVL rankings are often highlighted, the EVM and L2 communities should be seen as a unified ecosystem. Initiatives like this, which benefit the entire community, deserve our support. We appreciate that Arbitrum has this opportunity to demonstrate that we're not competing in this realm but rather collaborating for mutual benefit. We are eager to see the outcomes of the Hackathon and hope it leads to significant advancements in EVM security. Additionally, the post-event Immunifi Hack will be an exciting event to observe and participate in.
The proposal for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon, while ambitious in its goal to enhance Ethereum's security, raises several points of discussion regarding the clarity and justification of its funding structure:
Funding Transparency: The proposal outlines a goal to raise over $2 million, with an initial $500,000 from the Ethereum Foundation. However, it lacks detailed comparisons with similar initiatives or past events within or outside the Ethereum ecosystem. This absence makes it challenging to gauge whether the proposed amounts are commensurate with the event's scope or industry standards.
Comparative Analysis: There's a noticeable gap in providing benchmarks against which the community can evaluate the funding request. While the initiative's importance for Ethereum's security is acknowledged, understanding how this investment stacks up against previous security audits or similar events in other blockchains would provide a clearer perspective on its value proposition.
Community Engagement and Trust: For initiatives within decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum, trust and transparency are paramount. The lack of detailed financial justification might lead to skepticism or questions about the efficiency of resource allocation, potentially affecting community trust and engagement.
Proposal Enhancement: To address these concerns, the proposers could consider:
The proposal for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon, while ambitious in its goal to enhance Ethereum's security, raises several points of discussion regarding the clarity and justification of its funding structure:
Funding Transparency: The proposal outlines a goal to raise over $2 million, with an initial $500,000 from the Ethereum Foundation. However, it lacks detailed comparisons with similar initiatives or past events within or outside the Ethereum ecosystem. This absence makes it challenging to gauge whether the proposed amounts are commensurate with the event's scope or industry standards.
Comparative Analysis: There's a noticeable gap in providing benchmarks against which the community can evaluate the funding request. While the initiative's importance for Ethereum's security is acknowledged, understanding how this investment stacks up against previous security audits or similar events in other blockchains would provide a clearer perspective on its value proposition.
Community Engagement and Trust: For initiatives within decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum, trust and transparency are paramount. The lack of detailed financial justification might lead to skepticism or questions about the efficiency of resource allocation, potentially affecting community trust and engagement.
Proposal Enhancement: To address these concerns, the proposers could consider:
Detailed Financial Justification: Provide a breakdown of how the funding amount was calculated, including comparisons with past security audits or similar events in other blockchain ecosystems.
Outcome Metrics: Outline expected outcomes in relation to the investment, possibly including metrics like the anticipated number of vulnerabilities found, or improvements in code security.
Community Feedback Loop: Establish mechanisms for ongoing community input on the funding and outcomes, ensuring the initiative remains aligned with community expectations.
In conclusion, while the intent behind the Attackathon is commendable, enhancing its proposal with clearer financial transparency and comparative data could significantly bolster community support and trust. This approach would not only justify the investment but also set a precedent for future funding proposals within the Ethereum community.
The proposal for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon, while ambitious in its goal to enhance Ethereum's security, raises several points of discussion regarding the clarity and justification of its funding structure:
Funding Transparency: The proposal outlines a goal to raise over $2 million, with an initial $500,000 from the Ethereum Foundation. However, it lacks detailed comparisons with similar initiatives or past events within or outside the Ethereum ecosystem. This absence makes it challenging to gauge whether the proposed amounts are commensurate with the event's scope or industry standards.
Comparative Analysis: There's a noticeable gap in providing benchmarks against which the community can evaluate the funding request. While the initiative's importance for Ethereum's security is acknowledged, understanding how this investment stacks up against previous security audits or similar events in other blockchains would provide a clearer perspective on its value proposition.
Community Engagement and Trust: For initiatives within decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum, trust and transparency are paramount. The lack of detailed financial justification might lead to skepticism or questions about the efficiency of resource allocation, potentially affecting community trust and engagement.
Proposal Enhancement: To address these concerns, the proposers could consider:
The proposal for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon, while ambitious in its goal to enhance Ethereum's security, raises several points of discussion regarding the clarity and justification of its funding structure:
Funding Transparency: The proposal outlines a goal to raise over $2 million, with an initial $500,000 from the Ethereum Foundation. However, it lacks detailed comparisons with similar initiatives or past events within or outside the Ethereum ecosystem. This absence makes it challenging to gauge whether the proposed amounts are commensurate with the event's scope or industry standards.
Comparative Analysis: There's a noticeable gap in providing benchmarks against which the community can evaluate the funding request. While the initiative's importance for Ethereum's security is acknowledged, understanding how this investment stacks up against previous security audits or similar events in other blockchains would provide a clearer perspective on its value proposition.
Community Engagement and Trust: For initiatives within decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum, trust and transparency are paramount. The lack of detailed financial justification might lead to skepticism or questions about the efficiency of resource allocation, potentially affecting community trust and engagement.
Proposal Enhancement: To address these concerns, the proposers could consider:
Detailed Financial Justification: Provide a breakdown of how the funding amount was calculated, including comparisons with past security audits or similar events in other blockchain ecosystems.
Outcome Metrics: Outline expected outcomes in relation to the investment, possibly including metrics like the anticipated number of vulnerabilities found, or improvements in code security.
Community Feedback Loop: Establish mechanisms for ongoing community input on the funding and outcomes, ensuring the initiative remains aligned with community expectations.
In conclusion, while the intent behind the Attackathon is commendable, enhancing its proposal with clearer financial transparency and comparative data could significantly bolster community support and trust. This approach would not only justify the investment but also set a precedent for future funding proposals within the Ethereum community.
The results are in for the UPDATED - Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1386
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1378
The results are in for the UPDATED - Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1386
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1378
The results are in for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1047
Hey @rodrigolvc @coinflip , I saw that this proposal is now queued on Tally.
I noticed quite a few discrepancies between what is mentioned on the Snapshot proposal vs what is currently on the Tally proposal, and therefore have a few questions:
Hey @rodrigolvc @coinflip , I saw that this proposal is now queued on Tally.
I noticed quite a few discrepancies between what is mentioned on the Snapshot proposal vs what is currently on the Tally proposal, and therefore have a few questions:
Thanks
I appreciate your response, but I disagree regarding the benefits.
The main benefits are:
Marketing benefits are just a bonus to those.
The results are in for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1047
Hey @rodrigolvc @coinflip , I saw that this proposal is now queued on Tally.
I noticed quite a few discrepancies between what is mentioned on the Snapshot proposal vs what is currently on the Tally proposal, and therefore have a few questions:
Hey @rodrigolvc @coinflip , I saw that this proposal is now queued on Tally.
I noticed quite a few discrepancies between what is mentioned on the Snapshot proposal vs what is currently on the Tally proposal, and therefore have a few questions:
Thanks
I appreciate your response, but I disagree regarding the benefits.
The main benefits are:
Marketing benefits are just a bonus to those.
Thank you for your vote. We already clarified in previous comments that we can receive ARB.
I think this is a fair question. The Optimism Collective has two programs in the forum (RetroFunding and Mission Grants) and this initiative doesn't neatly fit the scope of either. We are still trying to find a way collaborate with Optimism on this.
Great question!
For typical out and out marketing channels like blogs, website, twitter, etc. we can report on views and reach. For the initial announcement of the program those were 7M and 3M respectively.
Great question!
For typical out and out marketing channels like blogs, website, twitter, etc. we can report on views and reach. For the initial announcement of the program those were 7M and 3M respectively.
We can measure page views to the landing page at regular intervals and as requested. We will also have an activation at Devcon which we can measure in terms of signups and attendance. We intend to stream the event if possible and we will be able to measure viewers and reach on that as well.
Last, the results announcement of the event will be similarly measurable and the evergreen audit style report created and educational materials will have sponsor names as well which can also be measured in terms of views, reach and downloads.
I just have one question @rodrigolvc , How will Arbitrum’s sponsorship visibility and engagement be measured and reported?
However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DA
However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DA
Thanks for the comment. I'm wondering how I could approach this differently in the future? The proposal was available for comments for more than 2 weeks before the snapshot.
Thank you for your vote. We already clarified in previous comments that we can receive ARB.
I think this is a fair question. The Optimism Collective has two programs in the forum (RetroFunding and Mission Grants) and this initiative doesn't neatly fit the scope of either. We are still trying to find a way collaborate with Optimism on this.
Great question!
For typical out and out marketing channels like blogs, website, twitter, etc. we can report on views and reach. For the initial announcement of the program those were 7M and 3M respectively.
Great question!
For typical out and out marketing channels like blogs, website, twitter, etc. we can report on views and reach. For the initial announcement of the program those were 7M and 3M respectively.
We can measure page views to the landing page at regular intervals and as requested. We will also have an activation at Devcon which we can measure in terms of signups and attendance. We intend to stream the event if possible and we will be able to measure viewers and reach on that as well.
Last, the results announcement of the event will be similarly measurable and the evergreen audit style report created and educational materials will have sponsor names as well which can also be measured in terms of views, reach and downloads.
I just have one question @rodrigolvc , How will Arbitrum’s sponsorship visibility and engagement be measured and reported?
However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DA
However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DA
Thanks for the comment. I'm wondering how I could approach this differently in the future? The proposal was available for comments for more than 2 weeks before the snapshot.
I just have one question @rodrigolvc , How will Arbitrum’s sponsorship visibility and engagement be measured and reported?
Hey Larva, I appreciate the comment. Out of curiosity for the future, can you explain you logic behind Ethereum being external to Arbitrum?
Hey @BlockworksResearch I appreciate the support! The EF twitter account will broadcast Arbitrum's support for the program. We're also interested in collaborating on the pipeline for SR's to contribute to future Arbitrum DAO events.
Hi Castle Capital,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and for the opportunity to clarify the proposal further. 100% of the funds will be paid out to security researchers for bug reports. If there are any leftover funds they will be rolled over to an audit contest covering the Pecta hardfork.
Hi Castle Capital,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and for the opportunity to clarify the proposal further. 100% of the funds will be paid out to security researchers for bug reports. If there are any leftover funds they will be rolled over to an audit contest covering the Pecta hardfork.
Tangible Benefits to Arbitrum: I understand the need for clear, tangible benefits to Arbitrum and the DAO. The primary benefit lies in enhancing Ethereum’s security, which directly impacts Arbitrum. A more secure Ethereum means a more secure Arbitrum, reducing potential risks that could affect the entire ecosystem. Specifically, since Arbitrum’s execution client, Nitro, is based on Geth, any bug in Geth is likely to also be present in Nitro. This makes it crucial for Arbitrum to support initiatives that strengthen the security of the Ethereum protocol, as it directly contributes to the stability and security of Arbitrum’s infrastructure. Additionally, Arbitrum will benefit from the free Immunefi Boost, a targeted audit contest that further strengthens Arbitrum’s own security framework.
Breakdown of Expenditures: All of the funds raised from the Ethereum Foundation and other sponsors, will be directed towards payouts for security researchers who identify vulnerabilities. These rewards will be structured based on the severity of the bugs found, ensuring that critical issues are appropriately incentivized and addressed. It’s also worth noting that Immunefi is forgoing their usual fees for this event, allowing all funds to be allocated directly to researcher payouts. Additionally, the educational components of the Attackathon are a collaborative effort between Immunefi, client teams, and the Ethereum Foundation, none of whom are charging for their contributions. In the event that there are any unused funds after the Attackathon, they will be rolled over to support an audit contest focused on the Pectra fork, further contributing to the security of the Ethereum and Arbitrum ecosystems.
Sponsorship Transparency: I appreciate the need for transparency regarding sponsorship. We have already confirmed sponsorships from Wormhole, GMX, and the Blockchain for Good Alliance. We have also submitted proposals to the Uniswap DAO and are preparing to submit a second proposal to the Gnosis DAO. These partnerships and proposals align with the strategic vision of building a strong coalition dedicated to enhancing the security of Ethereum, and by extension, the security of all connected ecosystems, including Arbitrum.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, and we look forward to continuing this conversation.
Hey cp0x,
Thanks for your questions.
Clarification Needed: I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “not for houses, but for projects.” Could you clarify that a bit so I can give you a better answer?
Sponsorship Benefits: The benefits of sponsorship are threefold:
Hey cp0x,
Thanks for your questions.
Clarification Needed: I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “not for houses, but for projects.” Could you clarify that a bit so I can give you a better answer?
Sponsorship Benefits: The benefits of sponsorship are threefold:
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
In my opinion, it's a no brainer to fund at the highest tier. Supporting genuinely decentralized, trust minimized tech is part of our core values. Without secure base layers (Ethereum) to scale, the orbit stack does't reach the same value in its competitive ecosystem. Arbitrum One and many orbit chains do and will continue to rely on Etheruem's security. Also there is optic value in not just saying but showing we are Ethereum aligned.
I like Griff's idea to use ARB instead of ETH if possible. Additionally, I wonder if we might be able to secure a bit more brand and marketing value out of the Unicorn Partnership. Potentially 3x tweets from the @ethereum account about Arbitrum, or something of the nature.
Thanks for your feedback and for raising these concerns about the proposal.
Hey Griff,
Thanks for your support! We can definitely accept the sponsorship in ARB. However, paying out the bounties in ARB (or multiple tokens) would reintroduce the volatility issue that we’re trying to avoid by switching to USD denomination instead of ETH. It would also add a lot of complexity to the bounty disbursement process.
Let me know if you have any other thoughts or suggestions!
I just have one question @rodrigolvc , How will Arbitrum’s sponsorship visibility and engagement be measured and reported?
Hey Larva, I appreciate the comment. Out of curiosity for the future, can you explain you logic behind Ethereum being external to Arbitrum?
Hey @BlockworksResearch I appreciate the support! The EF twitter account will broadcast Arbitrum's support for the program. We're also interested in collaborating on the pipeline for SR's to contribute to future Arbitrum DAO events.
Hi Castle Capital,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and for the opportunity to clarify the proposal further. 100% of the funds will be paid out to security researchers for bug reports. If there are any leftover funds they will be rolled over to an audit contest covering the Pecta hardfork.
Hi Castle Capital,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and for the opportunity to clarify the proposal further. 100% of the funds will be paid out to security researchers for bug reports. If there are any leftover funds they will be rolled over to an audit contest covering the Pecta hardfork.
Tangible Benefits to Arbitrum: I understand the need for clear, tangible benefits to Arbitrum and the DAO. The primary benefit lies in enhancing Ethereum’s security, which directly impacts Arbitrum. A more secure Ethereum means a more secure Arbitrum, reducing potential risks that could affect the entire ecosystem. Specifically, since Arbitrum’s execution client, Nitro, is based on Geth, any bug in Geth is likely to also be present in Nitro. This makes it crucial for Arbitrum to support initiatives that strengthen the security of the Ethereum protocol, as it directly contributes to the stability and security of Arbitrum’s infrastructure. Additionally, Arbitrum will benefit from the free Immunefi Boost, a targeted audit contest that further strengthens Arbitrum’s own security framework.
Breakdown of Expenditures: All of the funds raised from the Ethereum Foundation and other sponsors, will be directed towards payouts for security researchers who identify vulnerabilities. These rewards will be structured based on the severity of the bugs found, ensuring that critical issues are appropriately incentivized and addressed. It’s also worth noting that Immunefi is forgoing their usual fees for this event, allowing all funds to be allocated directly to researcher payouts. Additionally, the educational components of the Attackathon are a collaborative effort between Immunefi, client teams, and the Ethereum Foundation, none of whom are charging for their contributions. In the event that there are any unused funds after the Attackathon, they will be rolled over to support an audit contest focused on the Pectra fork, further contributing to the security of the Ethereum and Arbitrum ecosystems.
Sponsorship Transparency: I appreciate the need for transparency regarding sponsorship. We have already confirmed sponsorships from Wormhole, GMX, and the Blockchain for Good Alliance. We have also submitted proposals to the Uniswap DAO and are preparing to submit a second proposal to the Gnosis DAO. These partnerships and proposals align with the strategic vision of building a strong coalition dedicated to enhancing the security of Ethereum, and by extension, the security of all connected ecosystems, including Arbitrum.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, and we look forward to continuing this conversation.
Hey cp0x,
Thanks for your questions.
Clarification Needed: I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “not for houses, but for projects.” Could you clarify that a bit so I can give you a better answer?
Sponsorship Benefits: The benefits of sponsorship are threefold:
Hey cp0x,
Thanks for your questions.
Clarification Needed: I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “not for houses, but for projects.” Could you clarify that a bit so I can give you a better answer?
Sponsorship Benefits: The benefits of sponsorship are threefold:
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
In my opinion, it's a no brainer to fund at the highest tier. Supporting genuinely decentralized, trust minimized tech is part of our core values. Without secure base layers (Ethereum) to scale, the orbit stack does't reach the same value in its competitive ecosystem. Arbitrum One and many orbit chains do and will continue to rely on Etheruem's security. Also there is optic value in not just saying but showing we are Ethereum aligned.
I like Griff's idea to use ARB instead of ETH if possible. Additionally, I wonder if we might be able to secure a bit more brand and marketing value out of the Unicorn Partnership. Potentially 3x tweets from the @ethereum account about Arbitrum, or something of the nature.
Thanks for your feedback and for raising these concerns about the proposal.
Hey Griff,
Thanks for your support! We can definitely accept the sponsorship in ARB. However, paying out the bounties in ARB (or multiple tokens) would reintroduce the volatility issue that we’re trying to avoid by switching to USD denomination instead of ETH. It would also add a lot of complexity to the bounty disbursement process.
Let me know if you have any other thoughts or suggestions!
Thanks for your feedback and for raising these concerns about the proposal.
We appreciate your support and are here to address any further concerns you might have. Thanks for your attention and consideration.
Hey cp0x, I'm still unsure what you mean by the question. The sponsors could be L2s, but some of the sponsors are Dapps and other protocols. Could you rephrase the question?
Thanks for your feedback and for raising these concerns about the proposal.
We appreciate your support and are here to address any further concerns you might have. Thanks for your attention and consideration.
Hey cp0x, I'm still unsure what you mean by the question. The sponsors could be L2s, but some of the sponsors are Dapps and other protocols. Could you rephrase the question?
Voting FOR here.
As I support previously for Panda option. Let's make it happen.
Voting FOR here.
As I support previously for Panda option. Let's make it happen.
Voted for in Tally, ratifying my Snapshot vote. Initially chose Panda instead of Unicorn mainly because of cost effectiveness. Supportive of the event.
Vote: FOR Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/31
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/31
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
The Panda Partners tier sponsorship for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon aligns with Arbitrum’s long-term goals by reinforcing Ethereum’s security, which Arbitrum’s infrastructure heavily relies upon. By participating in this event, Arbitrum DAO shows its commitment to the broader Ethereum ecosystem, emphasizing the importance of collaborative security efforts in the space. This sponsorship not only strengthens Ethereum’s security but also highlights Arbitrum’s alignment with Ethereum’s core mission, which enhances Arbitrum’s reputation within the ecosystem.
Given the reasonable cost and mission alignment, this proposal represents a balanced approach to supporting critical security initiatives without requiring excessive financial commitment. Moving forward, however, it might be beneficial for Arbitrum DAO to establish a more streamlined process for sponsorship proposals, particularly those with high alignment but limited direct financial return, to avoid taking up significant governance time on each request.
DAOplomats is voting for this proposal on Tally.
We are maintaining our support from the temp check as our preferred option Panda Partners passed and is what is being proposed for onchain vote.
I voted FOR the Panda Partners sponsorhip on Tally for the reasons outlined below.
I voted FOR the Panda Partners sponsorhip on Tally for the reasons outlined below.
The Arbitrum protocol and ecosystem depend on Ethereum L1 for security. I think it’s reasonble for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute funds to the Attackathon. The Unicorn Partners level is a bit high for me, especially because it requires the DAO to send ETH from the treasury.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our support from the Snapshot voting for the "Panda Partners" tier sponsorship of the event. We believe in the direct mission alignment between the Arbitrum ecosystem and the Attackathon and the donation amount is reasonable.
Do you know the dates of this event? I couldn't find this information on the official websites.
Voted For: Being included in the big events in the Ethereum ecosystem is important. It might be hard to calculate ROI on this kind of event, but overall I think we all benefit from it. Not only Arbitrum but crypto space in general. For the future, I think we at Arbitrum DAO need to develop some other kind of system for proposals like this. We don't need to spend our governance time on each sponsorship request coming in like this.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal after having supported the proposal for the ‘Panda Partners’ tier during temp-check for the same reasons outlined then.
voting For the current onchain proposal because I believe Arbitrum should contribute to the security of the Ethereum ecosystem and Immunefi is the defacto platform for security bug bounties. This "Attackathon" event is something we should do much more of, in this space.
Voting FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons shared when temp-check voting happened.
We will continue to support the panda tier option on Tally, as previously supported during the Snapshot stage. The recent Security Council intervention demonstrates that the Arbitrum DAO's mission should include a commitment to maintaining the highest level of security for the entire ecosystem.
Voted in favor. During the snapshot phase I wasn't fully convinced of some aspects, mainly linked to the actual benefits of this initiative. However, the introduction of clear outcome metrics to evaluate the impact of participation allows me to be more confident in this initiative. As I also mentioned in my voting rationale during the snapshot vote, I would have been more confident in this choice if other L2s decided to take part in the initiative too, but I hope that their participation can take place in future editions.
I voted AGAINST for the same reason stated above.
Proposals worthy of support :heart_eyes: 1. Support the direction of the proposal: ArbitrumDAO sponsoring Attackathon helps both Ether and Arbitrum security. Ether's security directly affects Arbitrum, so it's a win-win. 2. Clear goals and transparency: The proposal has clear targets for the number of participants and the number of reports, and there will be regular reports to the community, so transparency is good. 3. Funding allocation: Immunefi waived fees and ensured that all funds were used to reward security researchers, which was good. And it makes sense that the remaining funds are used to support other auditing programs.
Suggestions: 1-. more AMA or community discussions could be organized so that more people can participate and understand the progress. 2-the education component was well done, and it is recommended to find ways to expand the impact of this to more security researchers.
Voted for in Tally, ratifying my Snapshot vote. Initially chose Panda instead of Unicorn mainly because of cost effectiveness. Supportive of the event.
Vote: FOR Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/31
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/31
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
The Panda Partners tier sponsorship for the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon aligns with Arbitrum’s long-term goals by reinforcing Ethereum’s security, which Arbitrum’s infrastructure heavily relies upon. By participating in this event, Arbitrum DAO shows its commitment to the broader Ethereum ecosystem, emphasizing the importance of collaborative security efforts in the space. This sponsorship not only strengthens Ethereum’s security but also highlights Arbitrum’s alignment with Ethereum’s core mission, which enhances Arbitrum’s reputation within the ecosystem.
Given the reasonable cost and mission alignment, this proposal represents a balanced approach to supporting critical security initiatives without requiring excessive financial commitment. Moving forward, however, it might be beneficial for Arbitrum DAO to establish a more streamlined process for sponsorship proposals, particularly those with high alignment but limited direct financial return, to avoid taking up significant governance time on each request.
DAOplomats is voting for this proposal on Tally.
We are maintaining our support from the temp check as our preferred option Panda Partners passed and is what is being proposed for onchain vote.
I voted FOR the Panda Partners sponsorhip on Tally for the reasons outlined below.
I voted FOR the Panda Partners sponsorhip on Tally for the reasons outlined below.
The Arbitrum protocol and ecosystem depend on Ethereum L1 for security. I think it’s reasonble for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute funds to the Attackathon. The Unicorn Partners level is a bit high for me, especially because it requires the DAO to send ETH from the treasury.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our support from the Snapshot voting for the "Panda Partners" tier sponsorship of the event. We believe in the direct mission alignment between the Arbitrum ecosystem and the Attackathon and the donation amount is reasonable.
Do you know the dates of this event? I couldn't find this information on the official websites.
Voted For: Being included in the big events in the Ethereum ecosystem is important. It might be hard to calculate ROI on this kind of event, but overall I think we all benefit from it. Not only Arbitrum but crypto space in general. For the future, I think we at Arbitrum DAO need to develop some other kind of system for proposals like this. We don't need to spend our governance time on each sponsorship request coming in like this.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal after having supported the proposal for the ‘Panda Partners’ tier during temp-check for the same reasons outlined then.
voting For the current onchain proposal because I believe Arbitrum should contribute to the security of the Ethereum ecosystem and Immunefi is the defacto platform for security bug bounties. This "Attackathon" event is something we should do much more of, in this space.
Voting FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons shared when temp-check voting happened.
We will continue to support the panda tier option on Tally, as previously supported during the Snapshot stage. The recent Security Council intervention demonstrates that the Arbitrum DAO's mission should include a commitment to maintaining the highest level of security for the entire ecosystem.
Voted in favor. During the snapshot phase I wasn't fully convinced of some aspects, mainly linked to the actual benefits of this initiative. However, the introduction of clear outcome metrics to evaluate the impact of participation allows me to be more confident in this initiative. As I also mentioned in my voting rationale during the snapshot vote, I would have been more confident in this choice if other L2s decided to take part in the initiative too, but I hope that their participation can take place in future editions.
I voted AGAINST for the same reason stated above.
Proposals worthy of support :heart_eyes: 1. Support the direction of the proposal: ArbitrumDAO sponsoring Attackathon helps both Ether and Arbitrum security. Ether's security directly affects Arbitrum, so it's a win-win. 2. Clear goals and transparency: The proposal has clear targets for the number of participants and the number of reports, and there will be regular reports to the community, so transparency is good. 3. Funding allocation: Immunefi waived fees and ensured that all funds were used to reward security researchers, which was good. And it makes sense that the remaining funds are used to support other auditing programs.
Suggestions: 1-. more AMA or community discussions could be organized so that more people can participate and understand the progress. 2-the education component was well done, and it is recommended to find ways to expand the impact of this to more security researchers.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
During the Snapshot vote we have provided feedback that has not been considered, therefore we have decided to vote against the proposal in Tally.
gm, voting FOR on Tally.
The request is reasonable for a bounty on Ethereum - can't understate how critical its security is for us. Glad Arbitrum can do its part.
I like that any unused funds will be used for an audit contest focused on securing the Pecta hardfork.
Will vote for, for everything that contributes to more security if its a reasonable cost.
We Voted For the proposal to be the Pandas Partner
Rationale
Thoughts and Feedback
We Voted For the proposal to be the Pandas Partner
Rationale
Thoughts and Feedback
voting Against because this onchain proposal is labelled as [CANCELED] in tally.xyz
Panda Partners program supporting the proposal Rationale 1、in terms of eth security and the developer community as a whole, is conducive to active participation in the entire ETH ecosystem 2, should enhance Arbitrum's position as a leader in the evm ecosystem.
Suggestions: 1、The initial amount is not easy to be too much, and is decided according to the effect after the feedback of the activity.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
Supporting this proposal shows Arbitrum's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem. Additionally, we support the decision that the Arbitrum DAO should back this as Panda Partners, as the DAO has voted to become Panda Partners with 30 ETH during the Snapshot voting.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum’s commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
These thoughts are collectively presented by @Blueweb, @Euphoria & @Nyx under the Lampros Labs DAO delegate.
Just reaffirmed my vote by voting 'FOR' on Tally. As I mentioned before: investing in security is never too costly, it's essential if we want a secure protocol. This proposal shows our strong commitment for security in the ecosystem.
Good question about amount of funding
We voted on 30ETH ~ 70.000 $. Why do we see a different amount in Tally?
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “(1st) Abstain, (2nd) Against, (3rd) Panda Partners, (4th) Unicorn Partners” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Did not have enough time to vote, but would have voted Against or Abstain. More details should be added to the proposal, and we should talk about how this aligns with Arbitrum's other security / partnership initiatives.
gm, I ABSTAINed for this proposal. While I am generally in favor of sponsoring activities that improve the security of the Ethereum ecosystem, I wanted to see a more collaborative approach from other L2s and players for this.
I'm voting FOR this proposal and supporting 'Panda Partners' level.
As mentioned by many before, Ethereum security is a top priority. Without Ethereum, Arbitrum wouldn't even exist, or make sense. So I support contributing to its security.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal and opting to support at the preference of ‘Panda Partners’ level.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal and opting to support at the preference of ‘Panda Partners’ level.
We’re generally supportive of initiatives that benefit the entire Ethereum ecosystem and have supported similar initiatives in the past (e.g., the donation to DEF and CoinCentre). We believe the Attackathon is valuable for enhancing Ethereum’s security and, by extension, Arbitrum’s stability.
My first choice was to vote against the proposal, as I believe we need something more Arbitrum-focused.
We vote "Panda Partners", "Against", "Abstain", and "Unicorns Partner".
We would basically vote for "Panda Partners" that would give reasonable support to the initiative that contributes to the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.
I voted against the proposal. While I highly value any efforts towards securing our infrastructure, the impact on the Arbitrum DAO does not justify the expenses.
I will be voting "Panda Partners" tier. Of the two, this IMO provides the most value. As we get to save roughly $112,500 over the Unicorn Partner tier which when you break it down only really seems to provide logo placement upgrades when you start to compare the differences. The Twitter Space speaker feels more like a hassle then a benefit (i.e., who would this even be...?) and a press release, while nice, doesn't really feel worth the price bump.
The way I'm seeing this... the benefit is marketing. Which obviously while nice to have, Arbitrum is also very well known and truthfully I don't think we really even need marketing on events like this. Without much benefit, my vote is more to aknowledge that we should show some support for these types of things. As well as effectively paying to avoid the negative press of rejecting support as a DAO. With that in mind, I think Panda teir is a good balance between showing support but not over-paying for something not really needed.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
During the Snapshot vote we have provided feedback that has not been considered, therefore we have decided to vote against the proposal in Tally.
gm, voting FOR on Tally.
The request is reasonable for a bounty on Ethereum - can't understate how critical its security is for us. Glad Arbitrum can do its part.
I like that any unused funds will be used for an audit contest focused on securing the Pecta hardfork.
Will vote for, for everything that contributes to more security if its a reasonable cost.
We Voted For the proposal to be the Pandas Partner
Rationale
Thoughts and Feedback
We Voted For the proposal to be the Pandas Partner
Rationale
Thoughts and Feedback
voting Against because this onchain proposal is labelled as [CANCELED] in tally.xyz
Panda Partners program supporting the proposal Rationale 1、in terms of eth security and the developer community as a whole, is conducive to active participation in the entire ETH ecosystem 2, should enhance Arbitrum's position as a leader in the evm ecosystem.
Suggestions: 1、The initial amount is not easy to be too much, and is decided according to the effect after the feedback of the activity.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
Supporting this proposal shows Arbitrum's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem. Additionally, we support the decision that the Arbitrum DAO should back this as Panda Partners, as the DAO has voted to become Panda Partners with 30 ETH during the Snapshot voting.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum’s commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
These thoughts are collectively presented by @Blueweb, @Euphoria & @Nyx under the Lampros Labs DAO delegate.
Just reaffirmed my vote by voting 'FOR' on Tally. As I mentioned before: investing in security is never too costly, it's essential if we want a secure protocol. This proposal shows our strong commitment for security in the ecosystem.
Good question about amount of funding
We voted on 30ETH ~ 70.000 $. Why do we see a different amount in Tally?
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “(1st) Abstain, (2nd) Against, (3rd) Panda Partners, (4th) Unicorn Partners” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Did not have enough time to vote, but would have voted Against or Abstain. More details should be added to the proposal, and we should talk about how this aligns with Arbitrum's other security / partnership initiatives.
gm, I ABSTAINed for this proposal. While I am generally in favor of sponsoring activities that improve the security of the Ethereum ecosystem, I wanted to see a more collaborative approach from other L2s and players for this.
I'm voting FOR this proposal and supporting 'Panda Partners' level.
As mentioned by many before, Ethereum security is a top priority. Without Ethereum, Arbitrum wouldn't even exist, or make sense. So I support contributing to its security.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal and opting to support at the preference of ‘Panda Partners’ level.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal and opting to support at the preference of ‘Panda Partners’ level.
We’re generally supportive of initiatives that benefit the entire Ethereum ecosystem and have supported similar initiatives in the past (e.g., the donation to DEF and CoinCentre). We believe the Attackathon is valuable for enhancing Ethereum’s security and, by extension, Arbitrum’s stability.
My first choice was to vote against the proposal, as I believe we need something more Arbitrum-focused.
We vote "Panda Partners", "Against", "Abstain", and "Unicorns Partner".
We would basically vote for "Panda Partners" that would give reasonable support to the initiative that contributes to the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.
I voted against the proposal. While I highly value any efforts towards securing our infrastructure, the impact on the Arbitrum DAO does not justify the expenses.
I will be voting "Panda Partners" tier. Of the two, this IMO provides the most value. As we get to save roughly $112,500 over the Unicorn Partner tier which when you break it down only really seems to provide logo placement upgrades when you start to compare the differences. The Twitter Space speaker feels more like a hassle then a benefit (i.e., who would this even be...?) and a press release, while nice, doesn't really feel worth the price bump.
The way I'm seeing this... the benefit is marketing. Which obviously while nice to have, Arbitrum is also very well known and truthfully I don't think we really even need marketing on events like this. Without much benefit, my vote is more to aknowledge that we should show some support for these types of things. As well as effectively paying to avoid the negative press of rejecting support as a DAO. With that in mind, I think Panda teir is a good balance between showing support but not over-paying for something not really needed.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “(1st) Abstain, (2nd) Against, (3rd) Panda Partners, (4th) Unicorn Partners” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
While we generally support initiatives of this nature, as they contribute positively to the ecosystem, our experience reviewing multiple event sponsorship requests in the Domain Allocator by Questbook prompts us to seek additional budgetary details. The claim that the funding goal is up to $2 million requires further clarification.
Additionally, despite mentioning marketing integrations, we observed no dedicated workshop or side event for the sponsor. This is a common practice we typically require when approving grants in Questbook, and it would be beneficial to include such an offering in this proposal.
I will be voting "Panda Partners" tier. Of the two, this IMO provides the most value. As we get to save roughly $112,500 over the Unicorn Partner tier which when you break it down only really seems to provide logo placement upgrades when you start to compare the differences. The Twitter Space speaker feels more like a hassle then a benefit (i.e., who would this even be...?) and a press release, while nice, doesn't really feel worth the price bump.
The way I'm seeing this... the benefit is marketing. Which obviously while nice to have, Arbitrum is also very well known and truthfully I don't think we really even need marketing on events like this. Without much benefit, my vote is more to aknowledge that we should show some support for these types of things. As well as effectively paying to avoid the negative press of rejecting support as a DAO. With that in mind, I think Panda teir is a good balance between showing support but not over-paying for something not really needed.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I am editing the comment to note I will be voting for the Tally vote as my reasoning has not changed since the Snapshot vote.
The FranklinDAO Team supports the idea behind the proposal but believe that the funds should be allocated to a more Arbitrum focused developer and security event. For example, we would support events that focuses on solving challenges such as permisionless fraud proof systems and help progress Arbitrum to a Stage 2 rollup.
Voted in favour of Panda, and then Abstain since it was the second choice with the most votes (would have preferred Against).
We're voting: 1) Panda Partners, 2) Abstain, 3) Against, 4) Unicorn Partners. Panda tier balances support and budget prudence. Unicorn tier overcommits resources. Consider ARB payment for the chosen option.
DAOplomats is voting in this direction: Panda Partners > Against > Abstain > Unicorn Partners
Security is important and this attackathon would help bolster that. Regarding ROI for Arbitrum, we don't see anything substantial beyond marketing --- which is good. For this reason, we decided to support the initiative as Panda partners, voting against the proposal beyond that.
I am voting "Panda, Abstain, Against, Unicorn".
There is a merit in sustaining the Ethereum ecosystem initiatives, especially the security oriented ones, and by just participating we will get the audit contest in Arbitrum. That said, I think the Panda commitment would be enough for this initiative, at least in the first iteration in which is proposed, and we can see in future if we want to double down on potential success. Also, I still think we should pay the equivalent in Arb in the Tally proposal if it's ok for the organizers instead of Eth.
FWIW i tried to look into the Optimism governance forum and couldn't find any trace of this proposal. (not good nor bad, just stating this since a few delegates asked me if the same initiative was live in OP currently)
I voted in the following order on the temp check proposal:
The Arbitrum protocol and ecosystem depend on Ethereum L1 for security. I think it's reasonble for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute funds to the Attackathon. The Unicorn Partners level is a bit high for me, especially because it requires the DAO to send ETH from the treasury.
Excellent! As a recommendation, there are tools like Hootsuite and HubSpot that can help you track the reach of the channels you're using to distribute content. Another very useful tool is Meta Business from Facebook and Instagram. If you'll be sending mass emails, you could use Mailchimp to check who opens the emails, allowing you to target more interested recipients with specific advertising. If you need help or advice with this, I can assist you. :wink:
Hey rodrigolvc. I'm not saying Ethereum has nothing to do with Arbitrum, I'm just saying that Arbitrum should put more fund and effort into the Arbitrum ecosystem native projects. The recent sell-off of tens of thousands of ETH by the Ethereum Foundation, who have enough money to fund this activity without seeking funding from Arbitrum. This proposal is unfair to ARB holders and native projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem that have not yet been funded.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “(1st) Abstain, (2nd) Against, (3rd) Panda Partners, (4th) Unicorn Partners” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
While we generally support initiatives of this nature, as they contribute positively to the ecosystem, our experience reviewing multiple event sponsorship requests in the Domain Allocator by Questbook prompts us to seek additional budgetary details. The claim that the funding goal is up to $2 million requires further clarification.
Additionally, despite mentioning marketing integrations, we observed no dedicated workshop or side event for the sponsor. This is a common practice we typically require when approving grants in Questbook, and it would be beneficial to include such an offering in this proposal.
I will be voting "Panda Partners" tier. Of the two, this IMO provides the most value. As we get to save roughly $112,500 over the Unicorn Partner tier which when you break it down only really seems to provide logo placement upgrades when you start to compare the differences. The Twitter Space speaker feels more like a hassle then a benefit (i.e., who would this even be...?) and a press release, while nice, doesn't really feel worth the price bump.
The way I'm seeing this... the benefit is marketing. Which obviously while nice to have, Arbitrum is also very well known and truthfully I don't think we really even need marketing on events like this. Without much benefit, my vote is more to aknowledge that we should show some support for these types of things. As well as effectively paying to avoid the negative press of rejecting support as a DAO. With that in mind, I think Panda teir is a good balance between showing support but not over-paying for something not really needed.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I am editing the comment to note I will be voting for the Tally vote as my reasoning has not changed since the Snapshot vote.
The FranklinDAO Team supports the idea behind the proposal but believe that the funds should be allocated to a more Arbitrum focused developer and security event. For example, we would support events that focuses on solving challenges such as permisionless fraud proof systems and help progress Arbitrum to a Stage 2 rollup.
Voted in favour of Panda, and then Abstain since it was the second choice with the most votes (would have preferred Against).
We're voting: 1) Panda Partners, 2) Abstain, 3) Against, 4) Unicorn Partners. Panda tier balances support and budget prudence. Unicorn tier overcommits resources. Consider ARB payment for the chosen option.
DAOplomats is voting in this direction: Panda Partners > Against > Abstain > Unicorn Partners
Security is important and this attackathon would help bolster that. Regarding ROI for Arbitrum, we don't see anything substantial beyond marketing --- which is good. For this reason, we decided to support the initiative as Panda partners, voting against the proposal beyond that.
I am voting "Panda, Abstain, Against, Unicorn".
There is a merit in sustaining the Ethereum ecosystem initiatives, especially the security oriented ones, and by just participating we will get the audit contest in Arbitrum. That said, I think the Panda commitment would be enough for this initiative, at least in the first iteration in which is proposed, and we can see in future if we want to double down on potential success. Also, I still think we should pay the equivalent in Arb in the Tally proposal if it's ok for the organizers instead of Eth.
FWIW i tried to look into the Optimism governance forum and couldn't find any trace of this proposal. (not good nor bad, just stating this since a few delegates asked me if the same initiative was live in OP currently)
I voted in the following order on the temp check proposal:
The Arbitrum protocol and ecosystem depend on Ethereum L1 for security. I think it's reasonble for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute funds to the Attackathon. The Unicorn Partners level is a bit high for me, especially because it requires the DAO to send ETH from the treasury.
Excellent! As a recommendation, there are tools like Hootsuite and HubSpot that can help you track the reach of the channels you're using to distribute content. Another very useful tool is Meta Business from Facebook and Instagram. If you'll be sending mass emails, you could use Mailchimp to check who opens the emails, allowing you to target more interested recipients with specific advertising. If you need help or advice with this, I can assist you. :wink:
Hey rodrigolvc. I'm not saying Ethereum has nothing to do with Arbitrum, I'm just saying that Arbitrum should put more fund and effort into the Arbitrum ecosystem native projects. The recent sell-off of tens of thousands of ETH by the Ethereum Foundation, who have enough money to fund this activity without seeking funding from Arbitrum. This proposal is unfair to ARB holders and native projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem that have not yet been funded.
We really value initiatives that focus on Ethereum security, as it's crucial for the long-term success of Arbitrum and the entire ecosystem. However, the amount requested feels like a bit too much for this sponsorship, especially since it’s an online event and our main benefit would be having our logo displayed in a few places. While we support the idea behind this, we believe the cost doesn’t quite match the value Arbitrum would receive, so we’ll be voting against this proposal.
@rodrigolvc Hey, what's the reason for not asking to Optimism?
Lampros Labs DAO currently supports this proposal to sponsor the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon as it directly benefits the security and reliability of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
Lampros Labs DAO currently supports this proposal to sponsor the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon as it directly benefits the security and reliability of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
These thoughts are collectively presented by @Blueweb, @Euphoria & @Nyx under the Lampros Labs DAO delegate.
We just wanted to point out that currently, the two options that are being shown on the Snapshot are Abstain and Unicorn as the top two options. Of course, Abstain isn't really an option and shouldn't be considered.
Therefore, we think that when removing all abstaining votes as number 1, the number 1 option becomes Against (not Unicorn). We want to point out this as upon quick glance, some could make the logic of "Abstain wins, Unicorn second" and therefore Unicorn wins based on the ranked voting.
We just wanted to point out that currently, the two options that are being shown on the Snapshot are Abstain and Unicorn as the top two options. Of course, Abstain isn't really an option and shouldn't be considered.
Therefore, we think that when removing all abstaining votes as number 1, the number 1 option becomes Against (not Unicorn). We want to point out this as upon quick glance, some could make the logic of "Abstain wins, Unicorn second" and therefore Unicorn wins based on the ranked voting.
Whereas in reality, we think Abstain shouldn't even be considered, and for all that chose abstain first, their second choice should be the primary vote. Going forward, it might not make sense to have Abstain be an option to prevent display quirks like these.
On behalf of the UADP, we think the main thing that came from this that we think was ultimately appealing was the audit sections and clause. However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DAO, not enough to justify the costs.
Due to the size of the initiative and the Ethereum Foundation being behind it, I believe we must support and sponsor this event. Compared to the other spending we have at Arbitrum DAO I believe spending 75 ETH as Unicorn Partners is not an expense too big for the DAO. I agree with Griff's proposal that the sponsorship could be paid in ARB.
I voted FOR Unicorn Partners as the first option, and Panda Partners as a second option.
I am voting as follows: in favor of Panda, against, abstain and finally Unicorn.
I appreciate the focus on security and efforts to improve infrastructure through competitive initiatives.
However, honestly, beyond marketing, I don’t see anything particularly valuable being added to Arbitrum.
And definitely, Unicorn proposal feels a bit excessive.
It looks like a good proposal, but the reality is that there is very little benefit for the Arbitrum DAO beyond spending a lot of fund. I have always been opposed to such proposals, preferring to fund projects that are already in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a long time, rather than some nee external projects. So I will vote Against.
I'm usually in favor of initiatives that aim at enhancing security, but I have some doubts about the direct benefits of this proposal for Arbitrum. The cost is pretty high and the direct benefit would mainly be in terms of marketing. If we really want to proceed in sponsoring "non-arbitrum only" projects I would prefer to see us go for a lower sponsorship tier. Is any tier below Panda Partners available? I also find it strange that you have no intention to post this on the Optimism forums
For the time being I'll be voting for the Panda Partners tier but I would be more confident in this choice if other L2s decided to take part in the initiative too.
Investing in security is never too costly; it’s essential if we want a secure protocol. I voted in favor of the Panda Partners package because it offers a good balance between cost and effectiveness.
I’d just emphasize the importance of transparency at every stage and demonstrating accountability throughout the process.
While the proposal seems well written and thought out, we're having a hard time connecting how this would be beneficial to the DAO in the long run. Overall, we think that something like this would be nice to have, but more specifically to Arbitrum, much like the gov hackathons and similar that have happened in the past. This feels a bit too much like a large expenses just to have your logo on a few places.
I support this proposal because participating in the Attackathon aligns with Arbitrum's mission to maintain a secure and scalable Ethereum ecosystem. By sponsoring this initiative, Arbitrum will help strengthen the security of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for its own stability and reliability. Additionally, the educational component of the Attackathon will upskill security researchers, enhancing the overall security posture of both Ethereum and Arbitrum.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR the Unicorn Partners on this proposal on Snapshot.
Investing on the (eventual) underlying security of Arbitrum is necessary. As @MattOnChain said earlier, we would like to have some sort of brand recognition and marketing for Arbitrum, especially per the contribution. Tweets from the Ethereum account about Arbitrum would be perfect, additionally, if there could be some sort of pipeline or invitation to attackathon participants to participate in the DAO's future developer events, that would be much appreciated.
We are generally not in favor of this proposal as it currently stands. While we understand the importance of strengthening Ethereum's security, this proposal does not clearly outline a tangible benefit to Arbitrum or the DAO. Additionally, the requested sponsorship amount seems high given the lack of detailed information.
To make a more informed decision, we would like to request the following details:
We are generally not in favor of this proposal as it currently stands. While we understand the importance of strengthening Ethereum's security, this proposal does not clearly outline a tangible benefit to Arbitrum or the DAO. Additionally, the requested sponsorship amount seems high given the lack of detailed information.
To make a more informed decision, we would like to request the following details:
While we recognize the critical role of security in the Ethereum ecosystem, we need more detailed information to fully commit to this initiative. We are open to reevaluating our position once these details are provided and the potential benefits to Arbitrum and the DAO are more clearly articulated.
This large-scale security audit is crucial for reinforcing Ethereum's security, which directly benefits Arbitrum as a Layer 2 solution.
I just have one question @rodrigolvc , How will Arbitrum’s sponsorship visibility and engagement be measured and reported?
Hello, we have seen this same post on other forums for the Ethereum Attackathon, and while we support this initiative, we would like to see additional verification. On the Uniswap variant of this proposal, this was made by Jay Yu from the Stanford Blockchain Club (and he has prior history within Uniswap DAO). If we could receive some confirmation that you are Rodrigo Vasquez (since you currently do not have forum history on Arbitrum DAO that would speak to this) we would appreciate it.
Otherwise, here are some of our other concerns with this proposal. The current dates for the attackthon appear to have moved 1-2 days from other posts. Given that this would move to a Snapshot and then to Tally, this would take about ~2 weeks for Arbitrum alone. With this in mind, we think you should be cautious and plan for delays. Also, it seems as though this proposal will likely launch in other DAOs as well, are there plans to post this for the Optimism community or elsewhere?
In general, I am supportive of this cause, of course!
Is it possible for our portion and the bounties to be paid and denominated in ARB instead of ETH?
Im supporting the smaller package. In general my credo is to support anything security related and thus im favour of this.
We really value initiatives that focus on Ethereum security, as it's crucial for the long-term success of Arbitrum and the entire ecosystem. However, the amount requested feels like a bit too much for this sponsorship, especially since it’s an online event and our main benefit would be having our logo displayed in a few places. While we support the idea behind this, we believe the cost doesn’t quite match the value Arbitrum would receive, so we’ll be voting against this proposal.
@rodrigolvc Hey, what's the reason for not asking to Optimism?
Lampros Labs DAO currently supports this proposal to sponsor the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon as it directly benefits the security and reliability of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
Lampros Labs DAO currently supports this proposal to sponsor the Ethereum Protocol Attackathon as it directly benefits the security and reliability of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We support this proposal and believe this approach would demonstrate Arbitrum's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem.
These thoughts are collectively presented by @Blueweb, @Euphoria & @Nyx under the Lampros Labs DAO delegate.
We just wanted to point out that currently, the two options that are being shown on the Snapshot are Abstain and Unicorn as the top two options. Of course, Abstain isn't really an option and shouldn't be considered.
Therefore, we think that when removing all abstaining votes as number 1, the number 1 option becomes Against (not Unicorn). We want to point out this as upon quick glance, some could make the logic of "Abstain wins, Unicorn second" and therefore Unicorn wins based on the ranked voting.
We just wanted to point out that currently, the two options that are being shown on the Snapshot are Abstain and Unicorn as the top two options. Of course, Abstain isn't really an option and shouldn't be considered.
Therefore, we think that when removing all abstaining votes as number 1, the number 1 option becomes Against (not Unicorn). We want to point out this as upon quick glance, some could make the logic of "Abstain wins, Unicorn second" and therefore Unicorn wins based on the ranked voting.
Whereas in reality, we think Abstain shouldn't even be considered, and for all that chose abstain first, their second choice should be the primary vote. Going forward, it might not make sense to have Abstain be an option to prevent display quirks like these.
On behalf of the UADP, we think the main thing that came from this that we think was ultimately appealing was the audit sections and clause. However, given that the nature of this is an ethereum protocol Attackathon sponsorship, we think if we wanted to fund and pay for an audit, there should be an appropriate RFC and subsequent discussions around that. In its current form, this isn’t the most appealing to us and we think will have marginal benefits to the DAO, not enough to justify the costs.
Due to the size of the initiative and the Ethereum Foundation being behind it, I believe we must support and sponsor this event. Compared to the other spending we have at Arbitrum DAO I believe spending 75 ETH as Unicorn Partners is not an expense too big for the DAO. I agree with Griff's proposal that the sponsorship could be paid in ARB.
I voted FOR Unicorn Partners as the first option, and Panda Partners as a second option.
I am voting as follows: in favor of Panda, against, abstain and finally Unicorn.
I appreciate the focus on security and efforts to improve infrastructure through competitive initiatives.
However, honestly, beyond marketing, I don’t see anything particularly valuable being added to Arbitrum.
And definitely, Unicorn proposal feels a bit excessive.
It looks like a good proposal, but the reality is that there is very little benefit for the Arbitrum DAO beyond spending a lot of fund. I have always been opposed to such proposals, preferring to fund projects that are already in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a long time, rather than some nee external projects. So I will vote Against.
I'm usually in favor of initiatives that aim at enhancing security, but I have some doubts about the direct benefits of this proposal for Arbitrum. The cost is pretty high and the direct benefit would mainly be in terms of marketing. If we really want to proceed in sponsoring "non-arbitrum only" projects I would prefer to see us go for a lower sponsorship tier. Is any tier below Panda Partners available? I also find it strange that you have no intention to post this on the Optimism forums
For the time being I'll be voting for the Panda Partners tier but I would be more confident in this choice if other L2s decided to take part in the initiative too.
Investing in security is never too costly; it’s essential if we want a secure protocol. I voted in favor of the Panda Partners package because it offers a good balance between cost and effectiveness.
I’d just emphasize the importance of transparency at every stage and demonstrating accountability throughout the process.
While the proposal seems well written and thought out, we're having a hard time connecting how this would be beneficial to the DAO in the long run. Overall, we think that something like this would be nice to have, but more specifically to Arbitrum, much like the gov hackathons and similar that have happened in the past. This feels a bit too much like a large expenses just to have your logo on a few places.
I support this proposal because participating in the Attackathon aligns with Arbitrum's mission to maintain a secure and scalable Ethereum ecosystem. By sponsoring this initiative, Arbitrum will help strengthen the security of the Ethereum protocol, which is crucial for its own stability and reliability. Additionally, the educational component of the Attackathon will upskill security researchers, enhancing the overall security posture of both Ethereum and Arbitrum.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR the Unicorn Partners on this proposal on Snapshot.
Investing on the (eventual) underlying security of Arbitrum is necessary. As @MattOnChain said earlier, we would like to have some sort of brand recognition and marketing for Arbitrum, especially per the contribution. Tweets from the Ethereum account about Arbitrum would be perfect, additionally, if there could be some sort of pipeline or invitation to attackathon participants to participate in the DAO's future developer events, that would be much appreciated.
We are generally not in favor of this proposal as it currently stands. While we understand the importance of strengthening Ethereum's security, this proposal does not clearly outline a tangible benefit to Arbitrum or the DAO. Additionally, the requested sponsorship amount seems high given the lack of detailed information.
To make a more informed decision, we would like to request the following details:
We are generally not in favor of this proposal as it currently stands. While we understand the importance of strengthening Ethereum's security, this proposal does not clearly outline a tangible benefit to Arbitrum or the DAO. Additionally, the requested sponsorship amount seems high given the lack of detailed information.
To make a more informed decision, we would like to request the following details:
While we recognize the critical role of security in the Ethereum ecosystem, we need more detailed information to fully commit to this initiative. We are open to reevaluating our position once these details are provided and the potential benefits to Arbitrum and the DAO are more clearly articulated.
This large-scale security audit is crucial for reinforcing Ethereum's security, which directly benefits Arbitrum as a Layer 2 solution.
I just have one question @rodrigolvc , How will Arbitrum’s sponsorship visibility and engagement be measured and reported?
Hello, we have seen this same post on other forums for the Ethereum Attackathon, and while we support this initiative, we would like to see additional verification. On the Uniswap variant of this proposal, this was made by Jay Yu from the Stanford Blockchain Club (and he has prior history within Uniswap DAO). If we could receive some confirmation that you are Rodrigo Vasquez (since you currently do not have forum history on Arbitrum DAO that would speak to this) we would appreciate it.
Otherwise, here are some of our other concerns with this proposal. The current dates for the attackthon appear to have moved 1-2 days from other posts. Given that this would move to a Snapshot and then to Tally, this would take about ~2 weeks for Arbitrum alone. With this in mind, we think you should be cautious and plan for delays. Also, it seems as though this proposal will likely launch in other DAOs as well, are there plans to post this for the Optimism community or elsewhere?
In general, I am supportive of this cause, of course!
Is it possible for our portion and the bounties to be paid and denominated in ARB instead of ETH?
Im supporting the smaller package. In general my credo is to support anything security related and thus im favour of this.
Hello, we have seen this same post on other forums for the Ethereum Attackathon, and while we support this initiative, we would like to see additional verification. On the Uniswap variant of this proposal, this was made by Jay Yu from the Stanford Blockchain Club (and he has prior history within Uniswap DAO). If we could receive some confirmation that you are Rodrigo Vasquez (since you currently do not have forum history on Arbitrum DAO that would speak to this) we would appreciate it.
Otherwise, here are some of our other concerns with this proposal. The current dates for the attackthon appear to have moved 1-2 days from other posts. Given that this would move to a Snapshot and then to Tally, this would take about ~2 weeks for Arbitrum alone. With this in mind, we think you should be cautious and plan for delays. Also, it seems as though this proposal will likely launch in other DAOs as well, are there plans to post this for the Optimism community or elsewhere?
An additional concern that we have is that this proposal is denominated in ETH rather than a dollar value, which with recent market action seems unsafe. We are just providing a heads up because as this proposal moves to Tally, there could be an unforeseen issue if the dollar denominated amount is not properly established.
In addition to the questions above, I have a couple of others:
missclick, I didn't mean the house, I meant the chains
Hello, we have seen this same post on other forums for the Ethereum Attackathon, and while we support this initiative, we would like to see additional verification. On the Uniswap variant of this proposal, this was made by Jay Yu from the Stanford Blockchain Club (and he has prior history within Uniswap DAO). If we could receive some confirmation that you are Rodrigo Vasquez (since you currently do not have forum history on Arbitrum DAO that would speak to this) we would appreciate it.
Otherwise, here are some of our other concerns with this proposal. The current dates for the attackthon appear to have moved 1-2 days from other posts. Given that this would move to a Snapshot and then to Tally, this would take about ~2 weeks for Arbitrum alone. With this in mind, we think you should be cautious and plan for delays. Also, it seems as though this proposal will likely launch in other DAOs as well, are there plans to post this for the Optimism community or elsewhere?
An additional concern that we have is that this proposal is denominated in ETH rather than a dollar value, which with recent market action seems unsafe. We are just providing a heads up because as this proposal moves to Tally, there could be an unforeseen issue if the dollar denominated amount is not properly established.
In addition to the questions above, I have a couple of others:
missclick, I didn't mean the house, I meant the chains