Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal

posted 3 years ago

The below response 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.

As we stated in our original response during temp check, we believe the requested amount is too large. We hoped to see a revised proposal at the on-chain vote as we really believe in retroactively rewarding early contributors and our concerns are around the amount, as well as the process in which we assess the contributions to reach that amount.

The below response 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.

However, since no such revision took place, we’ll stand by our decision and vote against this proposal in the on-chain vote.

Given that it’s a decision we did not make lightly, we wanted to provide some transparency in the information and thinking that led us to it.

In our opinion, retroactive contributions are to be seen as an appreciation gesture rather than compensation. Arbiters were contributing to the DAO voluntarily and without any promise of compensation from the DAO. Of course, we appreciate their contributions immensely, especially since it was at a time when the DAO was still at its infancy. It’s important to make the distinction between compensating work to be done , and rewarding contributions made.
Second thing is that we do not fully understand why the calculations are based off of 2x the max airdrop amount. As the airdrop can be interpreted as the reward for early contribution as well, it would seem only fair to have the cap on those rewards at the same level.
We also tried to asses the proposal by trying to think whether we’d support it if it was forward-facing instead of retroactive. We asked ourselves whether we’d support funding 24 individuals for vaguely defined contributions in Arbitrum Discord for a year with 500,000 ARB. Although it’s not directly comparable to the case at hand, it’s an interesting exercise which can help gain some perspective.
Lastly, since the amount per individual is ~20,000 ARB, we thought whether there are individuals in the DAO that received similar funding for contributions, and then we tried comparing the contributions (to the extent that they can be compared) to see if there are any discrepancies.

One such case was the compensation proposed for spearheading the STIP, from organising the working group, moving the proposal through the governance process and through different iterations, overseeing the execution, and coordinating with delegates. It was a lot of work in a very short period of time which arguably had a lot of impact in the DAO.

The sample of contributions provided by Arbiters in the discussion would be comparable if they represented the contributions of a single person. However, if we are to mentally divide the work among the 25 Arbiters, then the 20,000 ARB/person (500k ARB in total) request seems too high.

With that in mind, and while we understand that the contributions Arbiters made were more open-ended and it’s way more difficult to measure the impact they had, we feel there’s a discrepancy between the 20,000 ARB and the value delivered in each case.

TL;DR: We’re voting against the proposal, but if the Arbiters were to submit another proposal where the ask amount was significantly reduced and/or clearer information about the contributions of each Arbiter, we’d be much more inclined to vote in its favor.

Mysterymen from mysterymen1905.eth

posted 3 years ago

The below response 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.

However, since no such revision took place, we’ll stand by our decision and vote against this proposal in the on-chain vote.

Given that it’s a decision we did not make lightly, we wanted to provide some transparency in the information and thinking that led us to it.

In our opinion, retroactive contributions are to be seen as an appreciation gesture rather than compensation. Arbiters were contributing to the DAO voluntarily and without any promise of compensation from the DAO. Of course, we appreciate their contributions immensely, especially since it was at a time when the DAO was still at its infancy. It’s important to make the distinction between compensating work to be done , and rewarding contributions made.
Second thing is that we do not fully understand why the calculations are based off of 2x the max airdrop amount. As the airdrop can be interpreted as the reward for early contribution as well, it would seem only fair to have the cap on those rewards at the same level.
We also tried to asses the proposal by trying to think whether we’d support it if it was forward-facing instead of retroactive. We asked ourselves whether we’d support funding 24 individuals for vaguely defined contributions in Arbitrum Discord for a year with 500,000 ARB. Although it’s not directly comparable to the case at hand, it’s an interesting exercise which can help gain some perspective.
Lastly, since the amount per individual is ~20,000 ARB, we thought whether there are individuals in the DAO that received similar funding for contributions, and then we tried comparing the contributions (to the extent that they can be compared) to see if there are any discrepancies.

First and foremost, I want to stress the importance of retroactively rewarding DAO participants who help in the ecosystem in any capacity. Every DAO member has contributed to helping Arbitrum get where it is today.

I strongly support this proposal and what it represents, but not in its current form. I have voted Against this temp-check and for the time being, and I am open to revisiting this in the next iterations. I believe in the importance of supporting the DAO through retroactive rewards to contributors.

A few points:

Although there is a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kjVQ-utNitq8Xr5zp0yYOMg1ufCaHn6g/edit) It is unclear who the final beneficiaries of this retroactive reward are. It would be very helpful for transparency to have all of the 25 estimated people (formally) detailed in the proposal.
It is unclear what did each user contribute, specifically. The bullet points outlining a summary of all that has been done are very clear, but it lacks specifics that will help delegates gauge the value contributed.
It would greatly help the voting and decision-making process if the proposals could outline concrete actions taken by Arbiters, with links and real-world examples. Better and more concrete metrics would be extremely appreciated.
Echoing comments and concerns posted by ITU Blockchain and Curia. Should the ARB distribution be uniform considering Arbiters had different levels of participation? A more detailed approach to all of the contributions and the people involved will help a lot to bring more clarity to these points.

As said by Mysterymen there is some difficulty in measuring contributions due to the lack of documentation through time, is there nothing that can be done (as a group) to try and reconstruct it?

Looking forward to the next steps and comments to be able to move forward with retroactive rewards for DAO contributors.

Edit: I want to clearly add that I would vote in favour of this proposal should we have a (better) complete list of recipients with their contributions greater measured.

posted 3 years ago

edited 3 years ago

We would like to respond to the issues raised by the above representatives as follows:

Thank you guys very much for your input. We have re-collected more contribution information, as well as the arbiters respective wallets, discord, twitter, etc., and added them to the original proposal contribution list, but this is only a portion of the contribution data that we were able to collect again, and we are very thankful for the support of the DAO representatives!

We would like to respond to the issues raised by the above representatives as follows:

List of Arbiters’ partial contributions and arbiter profile info,For the sake of DAO reps checking for updates, we’ve listed them separately :point_down: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=336825191

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=2082014896

Why aren't more specific links to Arbiter's contributions provided? When we first became Arbiter, we all joined and contributed to Offchain Labs out of love for Offchain Labs, but Arbiters didn't know each other and didn't realize that OffChain Labs would issue airdrop rewards in the future, so we didn't designate a person to manage and save the information of everyone's contribution, Arbiter himself did not save his own contributions, and due to some of Arbiter's local regulatory policies on the cryptocurrency industry, a lot of information is lost and invalid, So some incomplete information that we didn't provide.
Why are rewards not distributed equally according to each individual's contribution? As mentioned above, due to a lot of data loss and failure, some Arbiters have been helping other members as supporters of the discord community, but some Arbiters have not been serving the community as supporters of the discord community, but rather have been conducting AMA's and promotional activities, etc. outside of the discord, and to singularly evaluate the contribution of a certain Arbiter, it would be Obviously not fair, this will directly erase the results of their contributions, so Arbiter unanimously decided to submit all the contributions in summary and the rewards are also evenly distributed, so as not to destroy the unity of everyone but also to let the Arbiter who has made contributions to get the rewards.
why ask for 500,000 Arb bonus and not more or less? We finalized the total reward of 500,000Arb based on other communities' rewards ratios for early contributors (e.g. Across allocating 20M ACX to the community) and based on Arbitrum's benchmarks for initial on-chain activity rewards, and we think it's fair to get 2x the max airdrop amount and even conservative considering the time and effort Arbiter has invested in making the community a better place. and effort, this may even be conservative. It is important to understand that the ARB token is a governance token and as such it represents voting rights. From this perspective, the allocation of 20,000 ARB tokens appears to be proportional to the impact Arbiter has had and the time, energy and effort they have invested, and this voting power will give Arbiters a greater say in the future of Arbitrum.
Why does this proposal not have a framework for Arbiter's future contribution programs and rewards? We are simply seeking a one-time retroactive reward from the DAO for our contributions over the last 2 years. The Arbitrum foundation has recently hired their own moderation/customer support team, and have initiated an Ambassador program. Therefore planning future contributions is not something we can assess at this time as Arbiters.
Will rewards be distributed to multi-signature wallets? We will ask Foundation to collect all the wallet address' and provide to the DAO for verification

Additionally, the Arbiter with Discord ID BILLY#7943 has voluntarily forfeited his reward and split it equally amongst the other Arbiters, so we will be modifying the original forum proposal and will be changing the 25 Arbiters in the original proposal to 24, so that the final calculation will be: 20,833.333 $ARB tokens per member x 24 Discord Arbiter = 500,000 $ARB

@ITUblockchain @cattin @olimpio @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth @krst @BlockworksResearch @Michigan_Blockchain @Curia @GFXlabs @eli_defi

Mysterymen from mysterymen1905.eth

posted 3 years ago

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the temperature check, but we are open to discussing it further before it goes to onchain vote.

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the temperature check, but we are open to discussing it further before it goes to onchain vote.

We want to start by saying that we definitely appreciate early contributors and we’re on board with the idea of retroactively rewarding their efforts. However, with the current state of the proposal, we can’t vote in favour of it for the reasons outlined by other delegates as well.

Specifically, we would like to see:

Some more information about the group of Arbiters and their contributions. We understand that quantifying that data is a difficult task, but right now its non existent.
A justification and breakdown for the requested amount, since right now it seems that it’s arbitrary.

On the other hand, if that reward was supposed to be the retroactive compensation for the work they’ve put, we should rather have a clear and open framework for incentivising such activities in the future and based on that framework assess individual contributions for retro compensation.

With the voting deadline upon us, we’ve chosen to vote against for the reasons outlined above, and we hope that these issues will be addressed and the proposal resubmitted for the DAO to review and vote on its updated version. We are happy to discuss this proposal and provide any additional feedback if needed, we would like to remind that we’re available every Thursday at 3pm UTC at our Arbitrum Office Hours (https://meet.google.com/jkj-nnop-arc).

A few points:

Although there is a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kjVQ-utNitq8Xr5zp0yYOMg1ufCaHn6g/edit) It is unclear who the final beneficiaries of this retroactive reward are. It would be very helpful for transparency to have all of the 25 estimated people (formally) detailed in the proposal.
It is unclear what did each user contribute, specifically. The bullet points outlining a summary of all that has been done are very clear, but it lacks specifics that will help delegates gauge the value contributed.
It would greatly help the voting and decision-making process if the proposals could outline concrete actions taken by Arbiters, with links and real-world examples. Better and more concrete metrics would be extremely appreciated.
Echoing comments and concerns posted by ITU Blockchain and Curia. Should the ARB distribution be uniform considering Arbiters had different levels of participation? A more detailed approach to all of the contributions and the people involved will help a lot to bring more clarity to these points.

As said by Mysterymen there is some difficulty in measuring contributions due to the lack of documentation through time, is there nothing that can be done (as a group) to try and reconstruct it?

Looking forward to the next steps and comments to be able to move forward with retroactive rewards for DAO contributors.

Edit: I want to clearly add that I would vote in favour of this proposal should we have a (better) complete list of recipients with their contributions greater measured.

posted 3 years ago

edited 3 years ago

We would like to respond to the issues raised by the above representatives as follows:

List of Arbiters’ partial contributions and arbiter profile info,For the sake of DAO reps checking for updates, we’ve listed them separately :point_down: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=336825191

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=2082014896

Why aren't more specific links to Arbiter's contributions provided? When we first became Arbiter, we all joined and contributed to Offchain Labs out of love for Offchain Labs, but Arbiters didn't know each other and didn't realize that OffChain Labs would issue airdrop rewards in the future, so we didn't designate a person to manage and save the information of everyone's contribution, Arbiter himself did not save his own contributions, and due to some of Arbiter's local regulatory policies on the cryptocurrency industry, a lot of information is lost and invalid, So some incomplete information that we didn't provide.
Why are rewards not distributed equally according to each individual's contribution? As mentioned above, due to a lot of data loss and failure, some Arbiters have been helping other members as supporters of the discord community, but some Arbiters have not been serving the community as supporters of the discord community, but rather have been conducting AMA's and promotional activities, etc. outside of the discord, and to singularly evaluate the contribution of a certain Arbiter, it would be Obviously not fair, this will directly erase the results of their contributions, so Arbiter unanimously decided to submit all the contributions in summary and the rewards are also evenly distributed, so as not to destroy the unity of everyone but also to let the Arbiter who has made contributions to get the rewards.
why ask for 500,000 Arb bonus and not more or less? We finalized the total reward of 500,000Arb based on other communities' rewards ratios for early contributors (e.g. Across allocating 20M ACX to the community) and based on Arbitrum's benchmarks for initial on-chain activity rewards, and we think it's fair to get 2x the max airdrop amount and even conservative considering the time and effort Arbiter has invested in making the community a better place. and effort, this may even be conservative. It is important to understand that the ARB token is a governance token and as such it represents voting rights. From this perspective, the allocation of 20,000 ARB tokens appears to be proportional to the impact Arbiter has had and the time, energy and effort they have invested, and this voting power will give Arbiters a greater say in the future of Arbitrum.
Why does this proposal not have a framework for Arbiter's future contribution programs and rewards? We are simply seeking a one-time retroactive reward from the DAO for our contributions over the last 2 years. The Arbitrum foundation has recently hired their own moderation/customer support team, and have initiated an Ambassador program. Therefore planning future contributions is not something we can assess at this time as Arbiters.
Will rewards be distributed to multi-signature wallets? We will ask Foundation to collect all the wallet address' and provide to the DAO for verification

@ITUblockchain @cattin @olimpio @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth @krst @BlockworksResearch @Michigan_Blockchain @Curia @GFXlabs @eli_defi

Curia from curia-delegates.eth

posted 3 years ago

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the temperature check, but we are open to discussing it further before it goes to onchain vote.

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the temperature check, but we are open to discussing it further before it goes to onchain vote.

Specifically, we would like to see:

Some more information about the group of Arbiters and their contributions. We understand that quantifying that data is a difficult task, but right now its non existent.
A justification and breakdown for the requested amount, since right now it seems that it’s arbitrary.

ITUblockchain from itublockchain.eth

posted 3 years ago

edited 3 years ago

We would like to commend the initiative to recognize and reward the Arbiters for their dedication and hard work. It is evident that these individuals have played a significant role in the development, support, and growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem over the past years. Their contributions in various areas such as translation, promotion, community support, and fraud prevention are commendable and undoubtedly deserve recognition.

Points for Consideration

However, we believe there are some aspects of this proposal, particularly concerning reward distribution, that need a closer look and potential modification:

Equitable Distribution: The current proposal suggests a flat distribution of 20,000 $ARB tokens to each of the 25 Discord Arbiters. While this approach streamlines the process, it might overlook the nuances of individual contributions. We looked into some of Arbiter Discord activities (Arbiter.xlsx), we found out that there’s some noticeable disparities in the engagement and contribution levels among Arbiters. We need a more nuanced distribution strategy that factors in the quality, magnitude, and impact of these contributions.

For instance, Arbiter <.fyray>, despite being part of the Arbitrum Discord for a mere 6 months, has showcased more engagement than , a member for three years. Such disparities should influence the distribution metrics.

Valuing External Contributions: While the proposal does touch upon contributions outside Discord, it doesn't delve into their assessment and valuation. Since several Arbiters have excelled Arbitrum through external promotions, events, and content creation, it's crucial to devise a mechanism that recognizes and rewards these diverse efforts. We need a holistic view that values contributions, both within and outside the Discord community.

Quoted from Mysterymen

[arbiter Simple example table of contributions in different categories - Google Sheets ]

Benchmarking with other similar initiatives from other DAOs: We looked at similar initiatives, like the Optimism Collective’s reward system for community contributors. In contrast to Arbitrum's uniform rewards, Optimism Collective uses a tiered system, ensuring rewards align with each contributor's actual contributions and impact.

In short, while it's great to want to reward the Arbiters, the way the rewards are given out needs some tweaking. Ensuring our rewards reflect industry standards and correspond to the effort put in will make this reward approach more equitable. Given the current state of the proposal and the points highlighted, we are inclined to vote against it unless these considerations are addressed.

63.1K TOKEN

posted 3 years ago

Firstly, on behalf of ITU Blockchain, we wish to express our gratitude for your efforts in preparing this proposal. We recognize the significant contributions made by "Arbiters" through Discord and various community applications. Although we are unable to catalog messages sent by those with the Arbiter role on Discord, the community is well-acquainted with you and acknowledges your previous assistance.

However, within this proposal, we hoped to see a clear articulation regarding the criteria for selecting "Arbiters", whether obtaining this role is still possible, and a quantitative expression of the contributions made by those who currently hold this role.

Currently, a grant for a closed group consisting of 25 individuals is under consideration. We wholeheartedly agree that this group should be rewarded in line with their past contributions, but believe that this should be done in collaboration with the Arbitrum Foundation. Integrating the rewards with the Arbitrum Foundation's recent initiative, the Ambassador Program seems to be a more logical approach. In hopes of collaborating on this matter, we are tagging the officials from the Arbitrum Ambassador program: @eli_defi @AnaTech.eth

Due to the reasons mentioned above, we choose to cast an "Abstain" vote in this decision.

Englandzz_Curia from curia-delegates.eth

Curia from curia-delegates.eth

posted 3 years ago

I fully support the proposal to reward the Arbitrum community's This initiative is crucial to emphasize community unity, recognize dedication, and spotlight those who have notably influenced Arbitrum's evolution.

However, alongside my support, I'd like to address several concerns and suggestions:

Equitable Distribution: Some Arbiters may have been consistently contributing over a longer period, while others, perhaps newer, have made significant impactful contributions in a shorter time frame. An equal distribution might inadvertently not recognize these nuances. Hence, I believe it would be more equitable to calculate the grant based on the actual, tangible contributions of each Arbiter.
Beyond Discord: Focusing solely on Discord Arbiters might unintentionally leave out key contributors from other platforms. Arbitrum's growth narrative has been influenced by individuals across various platforms, including Reddit, Twitter, GitHub, and more. I'd suggest broadening the criteria to recognize contributors from other platforms.
Transparency and Metrics: A more structured and transparent metric system would provide clarity. Such a mechanism not only aids in this current initiative but could also be a benchmark for future reward and recognition schemes.
Expanding the Beneficiaries: Many individuals outside of formal roles have also played pivotal roles in Arbitrum's growth. The Arbiters have been instrumental, but there might be other unsung heroes in the community. Bringing them into the fold and rewarding them would truly capture the spirit of community collaboration and inclusivity.

In conclusion, while I stand firmly behind this proposal's intent, addressing the aforementioned concerns would refine it further. This approach would ensure fairness and inclusivity and pave the way for continued growth and collaboration.

let me know what you think guys!

ITUblockchain from itublockchain.eth

posted 3 years ago

edited 3 years ago

Points for Consideration

However, we believe there are some aspects of this proposal, particularly concerning reward distribution, that need a closer look and potential modification:

Equitable Distribution: The current proposal suggests a flat distribution of 20,000 $ARB tokens to each of the 25 Discord Arbiters. While this approach streamlines the process, it might overlook the nuances of individual contributions. We looked into some of Arbiter Discord activities (Arbiter.xlsx), we found out that there’s some noticeable disparities in the engagement and contribution levels among Arbiters. We need a more nuanced distribution strategy that factors in the quality, magnitude, and impact of these contributions.

Valuing External Contributions: While the proposal does touch upon contributions outside Discord, it doesn't delve into their assessment and valuation. Since several Arbiters have excelled Arbitrum through external promotions, events, and content creation, it's crucial to devise a mechanism that recognizes and rewards these diverse efforts. We need a holistic view that values contributions, both within and outside the Discord community.

Quoted from Mysterymen

[arbiter Simple example table of contributions in different categories - Google Sheets ]

Benchmarking with other similar initiatives from other DAOs: We looked at similar initiatives, like the Optimism Collective’s reward system for community contributors. In contrast to Arbitrum's uniform rewards, Optimism Collective uses a tiered system, ensuring rewards align with each contributor's actual contributions and impact.

63.1K TOKEN

posted 3 years ago

Due to the reasons mentioned above, we choose to cast an "Abstain" vote in this decision.

Englandzz_Curia from curia-delegates.eth