UPDATE - We are changing this proposal from Constitutional to Non-Constitutional. The motivation is to twofold.
- The Quorum for a Constitutional AIP is exceedingly high and votes on snapshot very rarely (if ever) achieve >180m votes,
- There is no amendment to the Constitution or on-chain code. The proposal is instructing the Arbitrum Foundation on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should be changed.
On the 18th of January 2024, the Arbitrum Foundation announced the Arbitrum Expansion Program which allows projects to fork the Arbitrum codebase, modify it to their business needs, and deploy it on any chain that derives security from Ethereum. In return, the new Orbit chain is expected to share 10% of their chain’s profit back to the wider Arbitrum ecosystem. This includes 8% for the ArbitrumDAO and 2% for a new Arbitrum Developer Guild.
One restriction of the Arbitrum Expansion Program is that a new Orbit chain must be deployed on any chain that derives security from Ethereum.
More specifically:
The “Arbitrum Expansion Program” is a suite of tools and services maintained and provided by the Arbitrum Foundation, a Cayman Foundation Company (the “Foundation”) designed to enable you to deploy and operate a trust-minimized network that has its security depend on the security of the Ethereum blockchain, which by way of example, is intended to include optimistic rollups, zk-rollups, optimiums and validiums that settle to Ethereum (each, an “Arbitrum Nitro Instantiation”).
Over the past few weeks, the Arbitrum Foundation has received inbound interest from projects that want to deploy their own Orbit chain on other networks including, but not limited to: Bitcoin, Binance Smart Chain, Cosmos, and others. We expect this type of interest to increase over time as the Arbitrum Tech Stack gains popularity on Ethereum.
This leads to the following question:
The Arbitrum Foundation is requesting the ArbitrumDAO to decide on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should further expand and allow new Orbit chains to be deployed on chains other than Ethereum (and its derivatives).
There are a few points to consider when evaluating the above question:
Revenue share. Allowing widespread deployment of Orbit could potentially increase the revenue generated for the ArbitrumDAO simply due to the increased number of deployments.
EVM dominance. It can be argued that the EVM and Solidity has become dominant across the industry as it was easily adoptable by blockchain projects including rollups like Arbitrum. Accordingly, allowing widespread deployment of Orbit can further bolster EVM and Stylus (EVM+) dominance across the industry.
Ethereum’s competitive advantage. Restricting Orbit chains to only Ethereum can potentially act as a competitive advantage for the Ethereum ecosystem, but there is a potential tragedy of the commons if the Arbitrum Tech Stack is only restricted to Ethereum while other rollups can be freely deployed elsewhere.
Alleviate confusion on definitions. There are increasingly blurry lines on what it means to settle on a particular chain as projects adopt different data availability layers, host chains, and bridge configurations. It may even be possible for a single rollup to have multiple validating bridges across different blockchains. Changing the license can alleviate the need to resolve these blurry lines and allow projects greater certainty when deciding to deploy an Orbit chain.
Of course, the above is not an exhaustive list, and there are other points the community may want to consider when making their decision.
Assuming the ArbitrumDAO approves Orbit chains to be deployed on any chain, then the Arbiturm Foundation will be responsible for collecting the 10% chain profit revenue share on the new chain and eventually migrating the funds into the ArbitrumDAO’s treasury and the Arbitrum Developer Guild.
The only requirement a project should consider before deploying on a chain is to check whether the Arbitrum Foundation has deployed a multisig to collect the revenue share. A multisig will be required to help the Arbitrum Foundation collect the fees and periodically bridge it to the ArbitrumDAO’s treasury.
Additionally, the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s description will be updated with the following:
Arbitrum Expansion Program The “Arbitrum Expansion Program” is a suite of tools and services maintained and provided by The Arbitrum Foundation, a Cayman Islands foundation company (the “Foundation”) designed to enable you to deploy and operate a trust-minimized scaling solution on a public blockchain network (each, an “Arbitrum Nitro Instantiation”). Subject to the terms of, and your compliance with, this Arbitrum Expansion Program Agreement (“Agreement”), the Foundation hereby agrees to make the Arbitrum Expansion Program available to you to develop and launch an Arbitrum Nitro Instantiation. The Foundation will also help you pursue modifications and improvements to the Nitro Software (as defined below) in cooperation with the Arbitrum DAO and in accordance with the Arbitrum DAO Constitution, as amended, available at https://docs.arbitrum.foundation/dao-constitution (along with the Arbitrum Expansion Program, the “AEP Services”). The Foundation reserves the right to determine the AEP Services available to you, and it may change the nature of the AEP Services available to you under this Agreement from time to time in accordance with the values and decisions of the Arbitrum DAO.
We plan to organize 2 governance calls to allow the community to discuss the merits on whether the expansion program should be extended:
After community discussion, the proposal will be put up for a temperature check on Snapshot with the following voting options:
There is no need for an on-chain governance vote (via Tally) as the license is managed by the Arbitrum Foundation.We will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP.
If the ArbitrumDAO decides to change the license, then the Arbitrum Foundation will endeavor to implement the necessary changes.
UPDATE - We are changing this proposal from Constitutional to Non-Constitutional. The motivation is to twofold.
- The Quorum for a Constitutional AIP is exceedingly high and votes on snapshot very rarely (if ever) achieve >180m votes,
- There is no amendment to the Constitution or on-chain code. The proposal is instructing the Arbitrum Foundation on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should be changed.
On the 18th of January 2024, the Arbitrum Foundation announced the Arbitrum Expansion Program which allows projects to fork the Arbitrum codebase, modify it to their business needs, and deploy it on any chain that derives security from Ethereum. In return, the new Orbit chain is expected to share 10% of their chain’s profit back to the wider Arbitrum ecosystem. This includes 8% for the ArbitrumDAO and 2% for a new Arbitrum Developer Guild.
One restriction of the Arbitrum Expansion Program is that a new Orbit chain must be deployed on any chain that derives security from Ethereum.
More specifically:
The “Arbitrum Expansion Program” is a suite of tools and services maintained and provided by the Arbitrum Foundation, a Cayman Foundation Company (the “Foundation”) designed to enable you to deploy and operate a trust-minimized network that has its security depend on the security of the Ethereum blockchain, which by way of example, is intended to include optimistic rollups, zk-rollups, optimiums and validiums that settle to Ethereum (each, an “Arbitrum Nitro Instantiation”).
Over the past few weeks, the Arbitrum Foundation has received inbound interest from projects that want to deploy their own Orbit chain on other networks including, but not limited to: Bitcoin, Binance Smart Chain, Cosmos, and others. We expect this type of interest to increase over time as the Arbitrum Tech Stack gains popularity on Ethereum.
This leads to the following question:
The Arbitrum Foundation is requesting the ArbitrumDAO to decide on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should further expand and allow new Orbit chains to be deployed on chains other than Ethereum (and its derivatives).
There are a few points to consider when evaluating the above question:
Revenue share. Allowing widespread deployment of Orbit could potentially increase the revenue generated for the ArbitrumDAO simply due to the increased number of deployments.
EVM dominance. It can be argued that the EVM and Solidity has become dominant across the industry as it was easily adoptable by blockchain projects including rollups like Arbitrum. Accordingly, allowing widespread deployment of Orbit can further bolster EVM and Stylus (EVM+) dominance across the industry.
Ethereum’s competitive advantage. Restricting Orbit chains to only Ethereum can potentially act as a competitive advantage for the Ethereum ecosystem, but there is a potential tragedy of the commons if the Arbitrum Tech Stack is only restricted to Ethereum while other rollups can be freely deployed elsewhere.
Alleviate confusion on definitions. There are increasingly blurry lines on what it means to settle on a particular chain as projects adopt different data availability layers, host chains, and bridge configurations. It may even be possible for a single rollup to have multiple validating bridges across different blockchains. Changing the license can alleviate the need to resolve these blurry lines and allow projects greater certainty when deciding to deploy an Orbit chain.
Of course, the above is not an exhaustive list, and there are other points the community may want to consider when making their decision.
Assuming the ArbitrumDAO approves Orbit chains to be deployed on any chain, then the Arbiturm Foundation will be responsible for collecting the 10% chain profit revenue share on the new chain and eventually migrating the funds into the ArbitrumDAO’s treasury and the Arbitrum Developer Guild.
The only requirement a project should consider before deploying on a chain is to check whether the Arbitrum Foundation has deployed a multisig to collect the revenue share. A multisig will be required to help the Arbitrum Foundation collect the fees and periodically bridge it to the ArbitrumDAO’s treasury.
Additionally, the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s description will be updated with the following:
Arbitrum Expansion Program The “Arbitrum Expansion Program” is a suite of tools and services maintained and provided by The Arbitrum Foundation, a Cayman Islands foundation company (the “Foundation”) designed to enable you to deploy and operate a trust-minimized scaling solution on a public blockchain network (each, an “Arbitrum Nitro Instantiation”). Subject to the terms of, and your compliance with, this Arbitrum Expansion Program Agreement (“Agreement”), the Foundation hereby agrees to make the Arbitrum Expansion Program available to you to develop and launch an Arbitrum Nitro Instantiation. The Foundation will also help you pursue modifications and improvements to the Nitro Software (as defined below) in cooperation with the Arbitrum DAO and in accordance with the Arbitrum DAO Constitution, as amended, available at https://docs.arbitrum.foundation/dao-constitution (along with the Arbitrum Expansion Program, the “AEP Services”). The Foundation reserves the right to determine the AEP Services available to you, and it may change the nature of the AEP Services available to you under this Agreement from time to time in accordance with the values and decisions of the Arbitrum DAO.
We plan to organize 2 governance calls to allow the community to discuss the merits on whether the expansion program should be extended:
After community discussion, the proposal will be put up for a temperature check on Snapshot with the following voting options:
There is no need for an on-chain governance vote (via Tally) as the license is managed by the Arbitrum Foundation.We will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP.
If the ArbitrumDAO decides to change the license, then the Arbitrum Foundation will endeavor to implement the necessary changes.
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
Changed from Abstain as this is a temp check and we will be discussing some of the key concerns that delegates have brought up.
https://tinyurl.com/arbitrumeverywhere
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
Changed from Abstain as this is a temp check and we will be discussing some of the key concerns that delegates have brought up.
https://tinyurl.com/arbitrumeverywhere
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
Expanding the Arbitrum Tech Stack beyond Ethereum will encourage broader adoption and potentially increase revenue for the ArbitrumDAO.
Arbitrum is Ethereum
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tane-delegate-communication-thread/23585/11?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
Maximum collaboration
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://tinyurl.com/3kkuxbh3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
Support expanding Arbitrum Expansion Program to deploy Orbit chains on non-Ethereum networks, increase ecosystem revenue.
https://shorturl.at/Wz7g4
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://reurl.cc/Mj1AA4
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
Expanding the Arbitrum Tech Stack beyond Ethereum will encourage broader adoption and potentially increase revenue for the ArbitrumDAO.
Arbitrum is Ethereum
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tane-delegate-communication-thread/23585/11?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
Maximum collaboration
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://tinyurl.com/3kkuxbh3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
Support expanding Arbitrum Expansion Program to deploy Orbit chains on non-Ethereum networks, increase ecosystem revenue.
https://shorturl.at/Wz7g4
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
https://reurl.cc/Mj1AA4
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/temperature-check-change-arbitrum-expansion-program-to-allow-deployments-of-new-orbit-chains-on-any-bloc
A conservative estimate might place Durov's TON holdings at 1-5% of the total supply.
A conservative estimate might place Durov's TON holdings at 1-5% of the total supply.
Market Share and Value Capture:
By expanding the Orbit license, Arbitrum can solidify its market share in alternative settlement layers and redirect value towards the Ethereum-aligned DAO.
Ethereum Alignment and Migration:
Market Share and Value Capture:
By expanding the Orbit license, Arbitrum can solidify its market share in alternative settlement layers and redirect value towards the Ethereum-aligned DAO.
Ethereum Alignment and Migration:
The response underscores the importance of maintaining alignment with Ethereum and incentivizing chains to migrate back to it. This can be achieved through seamless interoperability, access to ARB incentives, and fostering a robust ecosystem.
Pragmatic Approach:
Camelot recognizes that rollups are likely to be deployed on non-Ethereum chains, regardless of Orbit's involvement. Allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets can ultimately channel value back to the Ethereum-aligned DAO.
Mindshare and Secondary Effects:
The response highlights the potential benefits of widespread Arbitrum technology adoption, including increased mindshare and positive secondary effects, such as attracting more developers and protocols to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Roadmap and Resources:
Camelot's support is contingent on the current Ethereum-centric roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remaining unchanged. They oppose any impact on the current scope of development work and request transparency from the Foundation and/or OCL if any changes occur.
Market Share and Value Capture:
By expanding the Orbit license, Arbitrum can solidify its market share in alternative settlement layers and redirect value towards the Ethereum-aligned DAO.
Ethereum Alignment and Migration:
Market Share and Value Capture:
By expanding the Orbit license, Arbitrum can solidify its market share in alternative settlement layers and redirect value towards the Ethereum-aligned DAO.
Ethereum Alignment and Migration:
The response underscores the importance of maintaining alignment with Ethereum and incentivizing chains to migrate back to it. This can be achieved through seamless interoperability, access to ARB incentives, and fostering a robust ecosystem.
Pragmatic Approach:
Camelot recognizes that rollups are likely to be deployed on non-Ethereum chains, regardless of Orbit's involvement. Allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets can ultimately channel value back to the Ethereum-aligned DAO.
Mindshare and Secondary Effects:
The response highlights the potential benefits of widespread Arbitrum technology adoption, including increased mindshare and positive secondary effects, such as attracting more developers and protocols to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Roadmap and Resources:
Camelot's support is contingent on the current Ethereum-centric roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remaining unchanged. They oppose any impact on the current scope of development work and request transparency from the Foundation and/or OCL if any changes occur.
Customizability and flexibility: Orbit chains allow for permissionless deployment of Layer 3 (L3) or Layer 2 (L2) chains that can be tailored to specific use cases and business needs. This customizability extends to privacy settings, permissions, governance, fee tokens, and more, making them highly adaptable. Because you already know the truth @PGov , the only one truth is that we gone Leveraging Arbitrum's ecosystem: By building on top of Arbitrum's established and thriving ecosystem, Orbit chains can benefit from existing network effects and user base. Technical advantages: Orbit chains inherit the benefits of Arbitrum Nitro's technology stack, including fraud proofs, advanced compression, and EVM+ compatibility through Stylus. They also receive all future tech upgrades performed on Arbitrum Nitro. Performance optimization: Orbit chains feature "elastic block time," allowing them to produce blocks based on demand. This optimizes costs during low activity periods and improves user experience during high demand. Strong developer interest: Over 50 projects have already confirmed plans to launch as Orbit chains, including notable names like Xai Games, Deri Protocol, and Hook Protocol. Simplified deployment: Rollups as a Service (RaaS) providers like Caldera, Conduit, and Altlayer have extended support for Orbit chain deployments, making it easier for projects to launch and manage their chains. Economic benefits for Arbitrum is the only way , there is no second best here: Orbit chains pay fees to the Arbitrum sequencer, establishing a sustainable value accrual mechanism for the Arbitrum DAO and bolstering the long-term scalability of the ecosystem. Interoperability and data availability improvements: With upcoming interoperability features and integration with Celestia for data availability, Orbit chains are poised to become even more attractive for projects looking to build appchains on an established ecosystem.
Given these factors, Arbitrum's Orbit chains are well-positioned to succeed by offering a compelling solution for projects seeking customizable, high-performance blockchain infrastructure within an already thriving ecosystem.
Why We Believe Arbitrum and Orbit Need to Be Compatible with Non-EVM Systems
Before discussing anything further, I believe Arbitrum and Orbit should be technologically open. This openness should extend beyond various EVM ecosystems to include non-EVM systems. As a technology provider, Arbitrum should aim for compatibility and openness, regardless of which system prevails in the future, aligning with the spirit of decentralization.
Why We Believe Arbitrum and Orbit Need to Be Compatible with Non-EVM Systems
Before discussing anything further, I believe Arbitrum and Orbit should be technologically open. This openness should extend beyond various EVM ecosystems to include non-EVM systems. As a technology provider, Arbitrum should aim for compatibility and openness, regardless of which system prevails in the future, aligning with the spirit of decentralization.
New forces are emerging in other blockchain domains, including TON, Near, and the BTC ecosystem represented by Babylon. Arbitrum has achieved a leading position among Layer 2 solutions within Ethereum, but we should not be complacent and should explore these new opportunities. For example:
TON Ecosystem: Starting from Telegram, TON demonstrates the feasibility of large-scale blockchain adoption. Attracting Web2 users to Web3 has always been a goal, and TON offers a close opportunity to achieve this. Many new small game applications are emerging on TON. Arbitrum should serve not only Ethereum-native Web3 users but also new entrants from Web2. Compatibility with TON on Orbit is essential for this first step.
BTC Ecosystem: Innovations like inscriptions, ordinals, and upcoming BTC Layer 2 solutions show the BTC ecosystem's potential. Babylon's Restaking ecosystem could further promote this growth. BTC has a higher capital volume and security than Ethereum. Most BTC ecosystems are non-EVM dominated. Ignoring this potential would be a mistake.
Summary: Abandoning the non-EVM ecosystem means losing:
What We Hope to Achieve with a Non-EVM Compatible Orbit
As mentioned, TON and Telegram are currently the largest traffic gateways to Web3. We hope to use TON as a starting point to build an Orbit-based Layer 2 on this non-EVM system.
In just one year, TON has seen the emergence of thousands of small games and other Mini Apps, becoming the fastest-growing public chain in terms of ecosystem and user numbers. However, due to the limited capital volume of TON, with only around $1 billion in TVL, there are few mature DeFi projects. By building a TON Layer 2 based on Orbit, we hope to bring Ethereum and BTC ecosystem DeFi applications and funds into TON, enhancing security while introducing more DeFi applications. This approach can indirectly integrate TON's active gaming ecosystem into Arbitrum through Orbit, paving the way for Arbitrum's large-scale adoption. We aim to link Arbitrum with TON and eventually Telegram, bringing more users into Arbitrum.
In short, we aim to provide Ethereum and Bitcoin-level security for TON while attracting more new Web3 users to Orbit and Arbitrum.
Customizability and flexibility: Orbit chains allow for permissionless deployment of Layer 3 (L3) or Layer 2 (L2) chains that can be tailored to specific use cases and business needs. This customizability extends to privacy settings, permissions, governance, fee tokens, and more, making them highly adaptable. Because you already know the truth @PGov , the only one truth is that we gone Leveraging Arbitrum's ecosystem: By building on top of Arbitrum's established and thriving ecosystem, Orbit chains can benefit from existing network effects and user base. Technical advantages: Orbit chains inherit the benefits of Arbitrum Nitro's technology stack, including fraud proofs, advanced compression, and EVM+ compatibility through Stylus. They also receive all future tech upgrades performed on Arbitrum Nitro. Performance optimization: Orbit chains feature "elastic block time," allowing them to produce blocks based on demand. This optimizes costs during low activity periods and improves user experience during high demand. Strong developer interest: Over 50 projects have already confirmed plans to launch as Orbit chains, including notable names like Xai Games, Deri Protocol, and Hook Protocol. Simplified deployment: Rollups as a Service (RaaS) providers like Caldera, Conduit, and Altlayer have extended support for Orbit chain deployments, making it easier for projects to launch and manage their chains. Economic benefits for Arbitrum is the only way , there is no second best here: Orbit chains pay fees to the Arbitrum sequencer, establishing a sustainable value accrual mechanism for the Arbitrum DAO and bolstering the long-term scalability of the ecosystem. Interoperability and data availability improvements: With upcoming interoperability features and integration with Celestia for data availability, Orbit chains are poised to become even more attractive for projects looking to build appchains on an established ecosystem.
Given these factors, Arbitrum's Orbit chains are well-positioned to succeed by offering a compelling solution for projects seeking customizable, high-performance blockchain infrastructure within an already thriving ecosystem.
Why We Believe Arbitrum and Orbit Need to Be Compatible with Non-EVM Systems
Before discussing anything further, I believe Arbitrum and Orbit should be technologically open. This openness should extend beyond various EVM ecosystems to include non-EVM systems. As a technology provider, Arbitrum should aim for compatibility and openness, regardless of which system prevails in the future, aligning with the spirit of decentralization.
Why We Believe Arbitrum and Orbit Need to Be Compatible with Non-EVM Systems
Before discussing anything further, I believe Arbitrum and Orbit should be technologically open. This openness should extend beyond various EVM ecosystems to include non-EVM systems. As a technology provider, Arbitrum should aim for compatibility and openness, regardless of which system prevails in the future, aligning with the spirit of decentralization.
New forces are emerging in other blockchain domains, including TON, Near, and the BTC ecosystem represented by Babylon. Arbitrum has achieved a leading position among Layer 2 solutions within Ethereum, but we should not be complacent and should explore these new opportunities. For example:
TON Ecosystem: Starting from Telegram, TON demonstrates the feasibility of large-scale blockchain adoption. Attracting Web2 users to Web3 has always been a goal, and TON offers a close opportunity to achieve this. Many new small game applications are emerging on TON. Arbitrum should serve not only Ethereum-native Web3 users but also new entrants from Web2. Compatibility with TON on Orbit is essential for this first step.
BTC Ecosystem: Innovations like inscriptions, ordinals, and upcoming BTC Layer 2 solutions show the BTC ecosystem's potential. Babylon's Restaking ecosystem could further promote this growth. BTC has a higher capital volume and security than Ethereum. Most BTC ecosystems are non-EVM dominated. Ignoring this potential would be a mistake.
Summary: Abandoning the non-EVM ecosystem means losing:
What We Hope to Achieve with a Non-EVM Compatible Orbit
As mentioned, TON and Telegram are currently the largest traffic gateways to Web3. We hope to use TON as a starting point to build an Orbit-based Layer 2 on this non-EVM system.
In just one year, TON has seen the emergence of thousands of small games and other Mini Apps, becoming the fastest-growing public chain in terms of ecosystem and user numbers. However, due to the limited capital volume of TON, with only around $1 billion in TVL, there are few mature DeFi projects. By building a TON Layer 2 based on Orbit, we hope to bring Ethereum and BTC ecosystem DeFi applications and funds into TON, enhancing security while introducing more DeFi applications. This approach can indirectly integrate TON's active gaming ecosystem into Arbitrum through Orbit, paving the way for Arbitrum's large-scale adoption. We aim to link Arbitrum with TON and eventually Telegram, bringing more users into Arbitrum.
In short, we aim to provide Ethereum and Bitcoin-level security for TON while attracting more new Web3 users to Orbit and Arbitrum.
There isn't too much to share yet, but while trying to work out the best format for a guild, it became apparent that the requirements between our Arbitrum Protocol Guild and Ethereum's Protocol Guild are slightly different.
In Ethereum, there was a strong cohort of independent contributors across different verticals like client software & research. That was possible as Ethereum's Protocol Guild was proposed to solve the specific problem of rewarding these independent contributors.
There isn't too much to share yet, but while trying to work out the best format for a guild, it became apparent that the requirements between our Arbitrum Protocol Guild and Ethereum's Protocol Guild are slightly different.
In Ethereum, there was a strong cohort of independent contributors across different verticals like client software & research. That was possible as Ethereum's Protocol Guild was proposed to solve the specific problem of rewarding these independent contributors.
For us, we need to figure out how to also build up a strong cohort of independent contributors, and this extra step is what makes it difficult to strictly copy and paste the current solution on Ethereum.
by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone?
There isn't too much to share yet, but while trying to work out the best format for a guild, it became apparent that the requirements between our Arbitrum Protocol Guild and Ethereum's Protocol Guild are slightly different.
In Ethereum, there was a strong cohort of independent contributors across different verticals like client software & research. That was possible as Ethereum's Protocol Guild was proposed to solve the specific problem of rewarding these independent contributors.
There isn't too much to share yet, but while trying to work out the best format for a guild, it became apparent that the requirements between our Arbitrum Protocol Guild and Ethereum's Protocol Guild are slightly different.
In Ethereum, there was a strong cohort of independent contributors across different verticals like client software & research. That was possible as Ethereum's Protocol Guild was proposed to solve the specific problem of rewarding these independent contributors.
For us, we need to figure out how to also build up a strong cohort of independent contributors, and this extra step is what makes it difficult to strictly copy and paste the current solution on Ethereum.
by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone?
by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone?
https://x.com/stonecoldpat0/status/1816490682795884943
@stonecoldpat are there any more details you can share about this yet? Should we be expecting something similar to the system used in Protocol Guild?
https://github.com/protocolguild/documentation/blob/main/docs/02-membership.md
Thank you everyone for your comments and vote on the temperature check.
There has been a typo on the snapshot proposal - to clarify, the Arbitrum Foundation will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP. Therefore, if the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL quorum isn’t achieved, the default will be to keep the Arbitrum Expansion Program as it is, and not change anything.
Thank you everyone for your comments and vote on the temperature check.
There has been a typo on the snapshot proposal - to clarify, the Arbitrum Foundation will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP. Therefore, if the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL quorum isn’t achieved, the default will be to keep the Arbitrum Expansion Program as it is, and not change anything.
The red box highlighted on snapshot in the screenshot below should be NON-CONSTITUTIONAL instead of constitutional. We apologize for this mistake.
The funds are sent to two multisigs:
Collection on Ethereum mainnet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x1Afa41C006dA1605846271E7bdae942F2787f941
Collection on Arbitrum One: https://arbiscan.io/address/0x53877685aBc912c3C4624Dce647e4E17a15c07f6
by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone?
https://x.com/stonecoldpat0/status/1816490682795884943
@stonecoldpat are there any more details you can share about this yet? Should we be expecting something similar to the system used in Protocol Guild?
https://github.com/protocolguild/documentation/blob/main/docs/02-membership.md
Thank you everyone for your comments and vote on the temperature check.
There has been a typo on the snapshot proposal - to clarify, the Arbitrum Foundation will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP. Therefore, if the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL quorum isn’t achieved, the default will be to keep the Arbitrum Expansion Program as it is, and not change anything.
Thank you everyone for your comments and vote on the temperature check.
There has been a typo on the snapshot proposal - to clarify, the Arbitrum Foundation will require the snapshot vote to reach the same Quorum as required by a Non-Constitutional AIP. Therefore, if the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL quorum isn’t achieved, the default will be to keep the Arbitrum Expansion Program as it is, and not change anything.
The red box highlighted on snapshot in the screenshot below should be NON-CONSTITUTIONAL instead of constitutional. We apologize for this mistake.
The funds are sent to two multisigs:
Collection on Ethereum mainnet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x1Afa41C006dA1605846271E7bdae942F2787f941
Collection on Arbitrum One: https://arbiscan.io/address/0x53877685aBc912c3C4624Dce647e4E17a15c07f6
The funds are sent to two multisigs:
Collection on Ethereum mainnet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x1Afa41C006dA1605846271E7bdae942F2787f941
Collection on Arbitrum One: https://arbiscan.io/address/0x53877685aBc912c3C4624Dce647e4E17a15c07f6
From there, the Arbitrum Foundation will periodically send the funds onwards to the ArbitrumDAO's treasury and the to-be-formed Arbitrum Protocol Guild. None of the funds are kept by the Arbitrum Foundation.
UPDATE - We are changing this proposal from Constitutional to Non-Constitutional. The motivation is to twofold.
The Quorum for a Constitutional AIP is exceedingly high and votes on snapshot very rarely (if ever) achieve >180m votes, and
There is no amendment to the Constitution or on-chain code. The proposal is instructing the Arbitrum Foundation on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should be changed.
UPDATE - We are changing this proposal from Constitutional to Non-Constitutional. The motivation is to twofold.
The Quorum for a Constitutional AIP is exceedingly high and votes on snapshot very rarely (if ever) achieve >180m votes, and
There is no amendment to the Constitution or on-chain code. The proposal is instructing the Arbitrum Foundation on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should be changed.
The first post has also been updated to reflect this.
Restricting progress and expansion to non-EVM chains is likely futile - if Arbitrum does not provide solutions for other chains, developers and builders will simply seek and find alternatives elsewhere.
The implementation of this proposal would therefore provide Arbitrum with a clear path towards capturing an opportunity it otherwise would miss.
Restricting progress and expansion to non-EVM chains is likely futile - if Arbitrum does not provide solutions for other chains, developers and builders will simply seek and find alternatives elsewhere.
The implementation of this proposal would therefore provide Arbitrum with a clear path towards capturing an opportunity it otherwise would miss.
Additionally, beyond the proposal's clear financial upside, it also enhances Arbitrum's visibility and perceived value across different blockchain ecosystems, effectively fueling and proliferating its growth.
The funds are sent to two multisigs:
Collection on Ethereum mainnet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x1Afa41C006dA1605846271E7bdae942F2787f941
Collection on Arbitrum One: https://arbiscan.io/address/0x53877685aBc912c3C4624Dce647e4E17a15c07f6
From there, the Arbitrum Foundation will periodically send the funds onwards to the ArbitrumDAO's treasury and the to-be-formed Arbitrum Protocol Guild. None of the funds are kept by the Arbitrum Foundation.
UPDATE - We are changing this proposal from Constitutional to Non-Constitutional. The motivation is to twofold.
The Quorum for a Constitutional AIP is exceedingly high and votes on snapshot very rarely (if ever) achieve >180m votes, and
There is no amendment to the Constitution or on-chain code. The proposal is instructing the Arbitrum Foundation on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should be changed.
UPDATE - We are changing this proposal from Constitutional to Non-Constitutional. The motivation is to twofold.
The Quorum for a Constitutional AIP is exceedingly high and votes on snapshot very rarely (if ever) achieve >180m votes, and
There is no amendment to the Constitution or on-chain code. The proposal is instructing the Arbitrum Foundation on whether the Arbitrum Expansion Program should be changed.
The first post has also been updated to reflect this.
Restricting progress and expansion to non-EVM chains is likely futile - if Arbitrum does not provide solutions for other chains, developers and builders will simply seek and find alternatives elsewhere.
The implementation of this proposal would therefore provide Arbitrum with a clear path towards capturing an opportunity it otherwise would miss.
Restricting progress and expansion to non-EVM chains is likely futile - if Arbitrum does not provide solutions for other chains, developers and builders will simply seek and find alternatives elsewhere.
The implementation of this proposal would therefore provide Arbitrum with a clear path towards capturing an opportunity it otherwise would miss.
Additionally, beyond the proposal's clear financial upside, it also enhances Arbitrum's visibility and perceived value across different blockchain ecosystems, effectively fueling and proliferating its growth.
We voted for this proposal because we believe the revenue share would be beneficial to the DAO and increasing the number of deployments is beneficial to the ARB ecosystem in terms of adoption. Lots of discussion about whether this is ETH aligned, but we don’t think that restricts us to only focusing on the EVM. Would be great to keep track of such new deployments and if they do in fact negatively impact builders on ETH.
But one does not interfere with the other. The development of the Arbitrum and new chains is going on in parallel.
This (camelot reply qouted below) echoes my personal view points. L2s WILL be built on alternative settlement layers with or without Arbitrum's tech stack. The question becomes whether Arbitrum wants to cede marketshare to competing solutions with no value capture for our DAO (which IS Ethereum aligned, and can redirect accrued revenue to initiatives that support Ethereum's future), or if we want to spread our values&tech to other chains while growing the network of users, developers, applications, etc. familiar with an Ethereum aligned tech stack.
The key here is to ensure that these chains have a reason to migrate to Ethereum after launching, which in my opinion comes down to seamless interoperability between Ethereum settled Orbit chains, access to ARB incentives/grants programs/foundation/OCL support, infra for wallet providers, RPCs and Indexers, etc. The confident move here is to let them launch non-ethereum settled Orbit chains, but make our ecosystem so good that the migration back becomes inevitable.
This (camelot reply qouted below) echoes my personal view points. L2s WILL be built on alternative settlement layers with or without Arbitrum's tech stack. The question becomes whether Arbitrum wants to cede marketshare to competing solutions with no value capture for our DAO (which IS Ethereum aligned, and can redirect accrued revenue to initiatives that support Ethereum's future), or if we want to spread our values&tech to other chains while growing the network of users, developers, applications, etc. familiar with an Ethereum aligned tech stack.
The key here is to ensure that these chains have a reason to migrate to Ethereum after launching, which in my opinion comes down to seamless interoperability between Ethereum settled Orbit chains, access to ARB incentives/grants programs/foundation/OCL support, infra for wallet providers, RPCs and Indexers, etc. The confident move here is to let them launch non-ethereum settled Orbit chains, but make our ecosystem so good that the migration back becomes inevitable.
While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.
We also believe that if Arbitrum technology becomes the most widely used in rollups, we will not only achieve greater alignment in mindshare but also experience positive secondary effects. These include increasing the number of developers and protocols that have a direct route into the Arbitrum ecosystem, for example to leverage Stylus and other features.
However, our vote is specific to the license and basis the assumption that the current roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remain unchanged. At the current time, we would like to make it clear that whilst we are in favour of broadening the license use, we oppose that this comes at the expense of the current Ethereum-centric roadmap for Arbitrum. If this vote were to impact the current scope of development work we would appreciate insight and visibility from the Foundation and/or OCL respectively.
The concerns are more about the competition for finite energy and resources
Voted "FOR" in this proposal, as it is mandatory to enable Orbit on other chains. Even if the future is not Multichain, we need to be attentive to other options and make sure that Arbitrum will be well-placed.
That doesn't mean that our focus should move away from on Ethereum, but pragmatism is always needed when building the future.
Initially voted abstain as there were many key questions brought up during discussions with delegates that I believe require more discovery - among those how we align this expansion program with a broader vision/strategy.
Changed my vote to FOR to indicate I do support this exploration and this may have some valuable unlocks to facilitate growth / market share.
I am voting 'FOR' this proposal as it advances the adoption of the Arbitrum VM through a wider installed base and improves the chances of us being positioned as the preferred execution and rollup environment for web3. There are valid concerns about the governance of the Arbitrum Expansion Program and potential open sourcing of Orbit, while we should discuss those this proposal should be approved on its own merits.
Arbitrum One is ethereum’s largest scaling environment and the strongest asset of the DAO, don’t think there is much doubt that we are deeply ETH aligned but it doesn't mean we need to ETH maximalists to the detriment of the wider adoption that grows Arbitrum and eventually Arbitrum One (which settles on Ethereum) as our primary hub.
I've been thinking about this for the past 2 days... agonizing over it really... and taking the risk of sounding really stupid, paranoid and even for sure indulging in some virtue signaling (which honestly, these are all "qualities" I know I have), here goes my current thinking on it:
it seems to me, that this proposal is some kind of trojan horse
why? well...
After a lot of back and forth on this one, I will be voting "For" this proposal.
Realistically whether Arbitrum gets involved or not, some version of rollups will be deployed on non-Ethereum chains. So while I strongly value the Ethereum relationship, Arbitrum will be shooting itself in the foot if it fails to expand in this way. I also am hopefully this type of collaboration can lead to some really powerful technical advancements in the future.
Voting For
Voting for opens up:
Voting For
Voting for opens up:
Voting against, is a virtue signal at our own expense, don't get me wrong, we should prioritize our work so that we are scaling ethereum, I organized the first ethereum conference in 2018 (ScalingNow), I am here to help scale ethereum, but I also value inclusion and I trust OCL and the Foundation to prioritize Ethereum focused projects.
We're voting AGAINST the proposal to allow Arbitrum Expansion Program deployments on any blockchain.
The Arbitrum Foundation should concentrate on strengthening Ethereum's ecosystem. By limiting Orbit chains to Ethereum-derived security, we incentivize developers to build on and enhance the network that made Arbitrum possible. This focused approach ensures Arbitrum gives back to its roots while fostering a robust, interconnected Ethereum ecosystem.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We are in support of expanding the deployment of Orbit chains to alternative networks. This is an opportunity for Arbitrum to increase its presence on numerous other ecosystems, while simultaneously attaining more sources of revenue. The success of a couple of these new Orbit chains could amount to decent inflows–although this is currently a premature assumption.
We vote FOR the proposal.
Economically and practically, allowing new Orbit chains on any blockchain that demand the technology built by OCL and managed by the Foundation and DAO makes sense. We believe it's beneficial especially for more Stylus uses, which will lead to the world where developers can easily deploy their applications on the established environment.
We vote FOR the proposal.
Economically and practically, allowing new Orbit chains on any blockchain that demand the technology built by OCL and managed by the Foundation and DAO makes sense. We believe it's beneficial especially for more Stylus uses, which will lead to the world where developers can easily deploy their applications on the established environment.
However, since Arbitrum is Ethereum-aligned as clearly stated as its first community value, the Foundation and OCL should still prioritize the development and integration with the chains that are settled on Ethereum L1. Of course, there are various perspectives when it comes to defining "Ethereum-aligned" but settling on Ethereum L1 should be the most important value that "Ethereum" provides and it's still valued in the decision making process by the Arbitrum members.
I voted AGAINST this proposal.
I first heard about Arbitrum during Devcon, where it was introduced with a strong narrative centered on Ethereum scalability. I firmly believe that we should continue to follow this narrative rooted in settlement. Moving away from it could be complex in the long term, but I say this from my perspective as a web3 citizen aligned with the Ethereum journey.
We voted for this proposal because we believe the revenue share would be beneficial to the DAO and increasing the number of deployments is beneficial to the ARB ecosystem in terms of adoption. Lots of discussion about whether this is ETH aligned, but we don’t think that restricts us to only focusing on the EVM. Would be great to keep track of such new deployments and if they do in fact negatively impact builders on ETH.
But one does not interfere with the other. The development of the Arbitrum and new chains is going on in parallel.
This (camelot reply qouted below) echoes my personal view points. L2s WILL be built on alternative settlement layers with or without Arbitrum's tech stack. The question becomes whether Arbitrum wants to cede marketshare to competing solutions with no value capture for our DAO (which IS Ethereum aligned, and can redirect accrued revenue to initiatives that support Ethereum's future), or if we want to spread our values&tech to other chains while growing the network of users, developers, applications, etc. familiar with an Ethereum aligned tech stack.
The key here is to ensure that these chains have a reason to migrate to Ethereum after launching, which in my opinion comes down to seamless interoperability between Ethereum settled Orbit chains, access to ARB incentives/grants programs/foundation/OCL support, infra for wallet providers, RPCs and Indexers, etc. The confident move here is to let them launch non-ethereum settled Orbit chains, but make our ecosystem so good that the migration back becomes inevitable.
This (camelot reply qouted below) echoes my personal view points. L2s WILL be built on alternative settlement layers with or without Arbitrum's tech stack. The question becomes whether Arbitrum wants to cede marketshare to competing solutions with no value capture for our DAO (which IS Ethereum aligned, and can redirect accrued revenue to initiatives that support Ethereum's future), or if we want to spread our values&tech to other chains while growing the network of users, developers, applications, etc. familiar with an Ethereum aligned tech stack.
The key here is to ensure that these chains have a reason to migrate to Ethereum after launching, which in my opinion comes down to seamless interoperability between Ethereum settled Orbit chains, access to ARB incentives/grants programs/foundation/OCL support, infra for wallet providers, RPCs and Indexers, etc. The confident move here is to let them launch non-ethereum settled Orbit chains, but make our ecosystem so good that the migration back becomes inevitable.
While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.
We also believe that if Arbitrum technology becomes the most widely used in rollups, we will not only achieve greater alignment in mindshare but also experience positive secondary effects. These include increasing the number of developers and protocols that have a direct route into the Arbitrum ecosystem, for example to leverage Stylus and other features.
However, our vote is specific to the license and basis the assumption that the current roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remain unchanged. At the current time, we would like to make it clear that whilst we are in favour of broadening the license use, we oppose that this comes at the expense of the current Ethereum-centric roadmap for Arbitrum. If this vote were to impact the current scope of development work we would appreciate insight and visibility from the Foundation and/or OCL respectively.
The concerns are more about the competition for finite energy and resources
Voted "FOR" in this proposal, as it is mandatory to enable Orbit on other chains. Even if the future is not Multichain, we need to be attentive to other options and make sure that Arbitrum will be well-placed.
That doesn't mean that our focus should move away from on Ethereum, but pragmatism is always needed when building the future.
Initially voted abstain as there were many key questions brought up during discussions with delegates that I believe require more discovery - among those how we align this expansion program with a broader vision/strategy.
Changed my vote to FOR to indicate I do support this exploration and this may have some valuable unlocks to facilitate growth / market share.
I am voting 'FOR' this proposal as it advances the adoption of the Arbitrum VM through a wider installed base and improves the chances of us being positioned as the preferred execution and rollup environment for web3. There are valid concerns about the governance of the Arbitrum Expansion Program and potential open sourcing of Orbit, while we should discuss those this proposal should be approved on its own merits.
Arbitrum One is ethereum’s largest scaling environment and the strongest asset of the DAO, don’t think there is much doubt that we are deeply ETH aligned but it doesn't mean we need to ETH maximalists to the detriment of the wider adoption that grows Arbitrum and eventually Arbitrum One (which settles on Ethereum) as our primary hub.
I've been thinking about this for the past 2 days... agonizing over it really... and taking the risk of sounding really stupid, paranoid and even for sure indulging in some virtue signaling (which honestly, these are all "qualities" I know I have), here goes my current thinking on it:
it seems to me, that this proposal is some kind of trojan horse
why? well...
After a lot of back and forth on this one, I will be voting "For" this proposal.
Realistically whether Arbitrum gets involved or not, some version of rollups will be deployed on non-Ethereum chains. So while I strongly value the Ethereum relationship, Arbitrum will be shooting itself in the foot if it fails to expand in this way. I also am hopefully this type of collaboration can lead to some really powerful technical advancements in the future.
Voting For
Voting for opens up:
Voting For
Voting for opens up:
Voting against, is a virtue signal at our own expense, don't get me wrong, we should prioritize our work so that we are scaling ethereum, I organized the first ethereum conference in 2018 (ScalingNow), I am here to help scale ethereum, but I also value inclusion and I trust OCL and the Foundation to prioritize Ethereum focused projects.
We're voting AGAINST the proposal to allow Arbitrum Expansion Program deployments on any blockchain.
The Arbitrum Foundation should concentrate on strengthening Ethereum's ecosystem. By limiting Orbit chains to Ethereum-derived security, we incentivize developers to build on and enhance the network that made Arbitrum possible. This focused approach ensures Arbitrum gives back to its roots while fostering a robust, interconnected Ethereum ecosystem.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We are in support of expanding the deployment of Orbit chains to alternative networks. This is an opportunity for Arbitrum to increase its presence on numerous other ecosystems, while simultaneously attaining more sources of revenue. The success of a couple of these new Orbit chains could amount to decent inflows–although this is currently a premature assumption.
We vote FOR the proposal.
Economically and practically, allowing new Orbit chains on any blockchain that demand the technology built by OCL and managed by the Foundation and DAO makes sense. We believe it's beneficial especially for more Stylus uses, which will lead to the world where developers can easily deploy their applications on the established environment.
We vote FOR the proposal.
Economically and practically, allowing new Orbit chains on any blockchain that demand the technology built by OCL and managed by the Foundation and DAO makes sense. We believe it's beneficial especially for more Stylus uses, which will lead to the world where developers can easily deploy their applications on the established environment.
However, since Arbitrum is Ethereum-aligned as clearly stated as its first community value, the Foundation and OCL should still prioritize the development and integration with the chains that are settled on Ethereum L1. Of course, there are various perspectives when it comes to defining "Ethereum-aligned" but settling on Ethereum L1 should be the most important value that "Ethereum" provides and it's still valued in the decision making process by the Arbitrum members.
I voted AGAINST this proposal.
I first heard about Arbitrum during Devcon, where it was introduced with a strong narrative centered on Ethereum scalability. I firmly believe that we should continue to follow this narrative rooted in settlement. Moving away from it could be complex in the long term, but I say this from my perspective as a web3 citizen aligned with the Ethereum journey.
I am voting 'FOR' this proposal as it advances the adoption of the Arbitrum VM through a wider installed base and improves the chances of us being positioned as the preferred execution and rollup environment for web3. There are valid concerns about the governance of the Arbitrum Expansion Program and potential open sourcing of Orbit, while we should discuss those this proposal should be approved on its own merits.
Arbitrum One is ethereum’s largest scaling environment and the strongest asset of the DAO, don’t think there is much doubt that we are deeply ETH aligned but it doesn't mean we need to ETH maximalists to the detriment of the wider adoption that grows Arbitrum and eventually Arbitrum One (which settles on Ethereum) as our primary hub.
Looking ahead, Arbitrum One could serve as the central hub connecting Ethereum with various chains using Orbit, whether they settle on Arbitrum One, ethereum, other Ethereum L2s, different L1s, or as standalone L1s. The form that this connection, or light interop happens with Arbitrum One such as share sequencers or other solutions are not fully developed but having a common execution environment with these chains and who rely on us for further development of this VM positions us for that future.
I've been thinking about this for the past 2 days... agonizing over it really... and taking the risk of sounding really stupid, paranoid and even for sure indulging in some virtue signaling (which honestly, these are all "qualities" I know I have), here goes my current thinking on it:
it seems to me, that this proposal is some kind of trojan horse
why? well...
passing this proposal, like this, gives the still to be defined Arbitrum Developer Guild 20% of the 10% of the sequencer fees in these other blockchains, and I guess that this Arbitrum Developer Guild will then distribute that money in some still to be determined way that involves "the funds being appropriately distributed amongst its members" and by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone? Offchain Labs? the Arbitrum Foundation? idfk...
The main problem is that this basically sounds like breaking the original promise of Arbitrum, where all of the fees will go to the Arbitrum DAO. It's obviously not that simple, but that's roughly the original intent of Arbitrum as an Ethereum L2 governed by a DAO, right? That's what makes us different from... you know... the other Ethereum L2s, right? See here for more details on the current fee distribution. There is no other precedent of sharing fees to any other entity other than the Arbitrum DAO, except for 20% of the L2 Base Fee in Arbitrum Nova, that goes "to parties running Nova Validators / the DAC".
so... passing this proposal, this specific snapshot proposal that ends today, this offchain, non-constitutional quorum threshold bound, Arbitrum Foundation authored proposal... opens the door, and gives legitimacy, to change where the fees go... in ALL other blockchains that are not Ethereum... right?
keep in mind that, as far as I'm aware, the original Arbitrum Expansion Program was not voted on by the Arbitrum DAO. So as of today, it has no legitimacy whatsoever. So, now... to come up with this proposal, calling it a "change" to a non legitimized program that the Arbitrum Foundation announced in January in a forum post that had literally zero feedback from delegates on it... is kinda weird, no?
Even more, to make it an offchain only vote, and bound to the lowest non-constitutional quorum threshold... even weirder...
Am I the crazy one here? I'm fully aware that I'm sounding like this guy... so please... tell me what I'm missing in here... I really hope I'm missing something here... please... I beg you...
and also... of course... this proposal passing gives legitimacy to the possibility that Arbitrum could stop being the Ethereum L2 that it is, and becoming something else... something we still don't know what it is, how much effort it's gonna take, how much of a priority it's gonna be for OCL and the Foundation, etc, etc...
as I said before, in my opinion, this proposal violates the first community value in our constitution, of being "Ethereum-aligned". and the more I look into this proposal... the weirder it gets.
this proposal should not pass. if it passes, it will change the direction of Arbitrum substantially.
After a lot of back and forth on this one, I will be voting "For" this proposal.
Realistically whether Arbitrum gets involved or not, some version of rollups will be deployed on non-Ethereum chains. So while I strongly value the Ethereum relationship, Arbitrum will be shooting itself in the foot if it fails to expand in this way. I also am hopefully this type of collaboration can lead to some really powerful technical advancements in the future.
I'll caution that this has the huge potential to take time away from Ethereum specific development. I think it is important that these outside projects don't materially take away from what's being built on Ethereum as it still is the #1 smart contract network.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We are in support of expanding the deployment of Orbit chains to alternative networks. This is an opportunity for Arbitrum to increase its presence on numerous other ecosystems, while simultaneously attaining more sources of revenue. The success of a couple of these new Orbit chains could amount to decent inflows–although this is currently a premature assumption.
Yes, Arbitrum is Eth-aligned, but broadening the use of Orbit does not necessarily cannibalize the success of the EVM. It’s not like restricting Orbit development to Eth is materially increasing the competitive moat for Ethereum. The signaling here is simply that using Arbitrum’s technology is a ubiquitous resource, regardless where you decide to build–and for using this framework, you pay Arbitrum a cut. Such openness is the case with various other competitors. If the magnitude of pull that Orbit technology had towards drawing builders to Ethereum, then this would be a different conversation. As it currently stands, the impact Orbit has in terms of bringing value to Ethereum is not significant enough to justify forgoing development on alternative networks. We stand by this perspective as long as the Arb Foundation doesn’t largely divert their attention and resources to helping devs spin up Orbit chains on other networks. If the overhead related to expansion is too large, which the AF should be transparent about, then the DAO should revisit this topic.
I voted AGAINST this proposal.
I first heard about Arbitrum during Devcon, where it was introduced with a strong narrative centered on Ethereum scalability. I firmly believe that we should continue to follow this narrative rooted in settlement. Moving away from it could be complex in the long term, but I say this from my perspective as a web3 citizen aligned with the Ethereum journey.
Strategically speaking, as a DAO member, I understand that with Stylus as a language and Orbit as infrastructure, multiple settlements could exist beneath without necessarily compromising our core values and execution approach.
However, this brings new challenges, such as attracting new developers, encouraging projects to build on Arbitrum, and establishing a clear vision for growth that aligns everyone toward a common goal.
Genuinely, I don’t see that alignment yet, so my vote remains firmly in favor of staying true to Ethereum’s principles—without falling into maximalism, of course.
Looking ahead, if this proposal passes on-chain, I’d like to contribute more from a growth perspective to help drive the development of this Orbit ecosystem. Of course, I’d ensure that our communication keeps the values that initially brought us all together at the forefront.
Camelot is voting FOR the proposal of the Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow the deployment of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.
While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.
Camelot is voting FOR the proposal of the Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow the deployment of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.
While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.
We also believe that if Arbitrum technology becomes the most widely used in rollups, we will not only achieve greater alignment in mindshare but also experience positive secondary effects. These include increasing the number of developers and protocols that have a direct route into the Arbitrum ecosystem, for example to leverage Stylus and other features.
However, our vote is specific to the license and basis the assumption that the current roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remain unchanged. At the current time, we would like to make it clear that whilst we are in favour of broadening the license use, we oppose that this comes at the expense of the current Ethereum-centric roadmap for Arbitrum. If this vote were to impact the current scope of development work we would appreciate insight and visibility from the Foundation and/or OCL respectively.
We agree with @krst and @paulofonseca opinions and believe that Arbitrum should remain aligned with the values of the Ethereum community. It is crucial to focus on building and growing within the Ethereum ecosystem rather than diverting resources and attention to other blockchains. Supporting Ethereum ensures that we contribute to a truly decentralized, permissionless, and trustless future of finance.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We view this step as progress toward the expansion of the DAO and the Arbitrum Network. Allowing orbit chains to deploy on multiple networks could increase the number of deployments which subsequently increases the DAO's revenue. We can leverage our tech stack to achieve greater contributions outside of Ethereum. This could also bring an advantage of Arbitrum's horizontal scaling solution against its competitors. Currently, there are 4 horizontal L3 ecosystems, the Superchain (Optimism), Hyperchain (zkSync), AggLayer (Polygon), and Arbitrum's Orbit chains. If we want to get ahead of those already building L3 ecosystems, we need to take additional risks, and one might be allowing orbit chains to branch outside the Ethereum L1. Arbitrum already hosts a large number of orbit chains, currently standing at around 50-53 orbit chains in development/launched. This puts Arbitrum ahead of zkSync and Polygon in terms of acquisition, but behind Optimism. We can allow for greater ecosystem development if we open the horizon.
finally someone said it! thank you @krst and @Sinkas! :clap:
I just want to remind everyone that "Ethereum-Aligned" is the first community value, in the constitution of the Arbitrum DAO.
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 AGAINST this proposal and encourage delegates who voted in favor of it to reconsider their position.
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 AGAINST this proposal and encourage delegates who voted in favor of it to reconsider their position.
First of all, we’d like to point out that we wouldn't need to have this discussion if the Arbitrum license was simply free and permissionless. If the goal is to spread Arbitrum technology, then this would probably be the best course of action. If we were discussing opening the license, then we would be supportive, but that's not what we're discussing right now.
We believe that extending the Arbitrum Expansion Program to non-Ethereum chains is a huge mistake. Not only is it a distraction from building on and growing Ethereum, but it potentially supports Ethereum’s direct competitors, including centralized and permissioned ones.
Arbitrum invested immense amounts of time and resources to build permissionless fraud proofs with BoLD, and we are paying millions in ETH to settle transactions on the mainnet for a reason. Now, if this proposal passes, we're sending a signal that all of this is unnecessary as, apparently, chains can settle, for example, to Binance Smart Chain, and they could even get Arbitrum Foundation’s support to do so. What should we do that for? For some doubtful future income from sequencer fees? We should be working on converting users from those other chains, not incentivizing them to go there.
Furthermore, this is just an unnecessary distraction. We have a lot to do in Ethereum alone, and we should not spread ourselves thin trying to build our presence in other ecosystems. Arbitrum has a very strong position as an Ethereum L2, and in our opinion, the DAO and the Foundation should focus on using this advantage instead of building from scratch elsewhere.
We assume that if we change the expansion program to allow deployments of Orbit chains on any blockchain, the Foundation will be involved in managing these Orbit chains (at least for validating and collecting revenue). Consequently, the Foundation would then, at one point, probably turn to the DAO for additional support, be it in terms of money or other resources. We do not want to allocate time and/or resources to such deployments as we feel it’s not prudent to do so.
Lastly, we don't agree that we should try to hedge the risk of Ethereum losing its position to other chains. In our view, Ethereum is our best bet right now to ensure that the future of finance is built on a truly decentralized, permissionless, trustless, credibly neutral layer. If, instead, it ends up being built on Binance Smart Chain or something similar, then it doesn't matter if Arbitrum secures its' position there, as that would be a case of winning a battle but losing the war.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of this proposal to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain. It is a necessary step for further ecosystem growth.
Voting FOR on this initiative.
One of the biggest strong point of Arbitrum is the tech stack, and we should leverage it as much as we can.
Voting FOR on this initiative.
One of the biggest strong point of Arbitrum is the tech stack, and we should leverage it as much as we can.
While some, as we discussed in calls, believe we should keep it more focused on the Eth world, there is a pragmatic consideration to do: if we don't do it, someone else will. And, likely, we are going in a world in which every dapp might just have his own chain; how big could be the network effect of having Arbitrum tech being the engine of 90% of the L2s and L3s in the world?
Still think we need to refine a bit the proposal. Specifically, we need to be able to monitor and analyse returns over time from specific chains, to understand where the effort should be put BD wise. We need to also understand the cost that offchain labs might have in term of supporting all of these chains, and in general manage the economy at scale. There is also potentially a merit in being able at some point to revise the numbers proposed above (10%) accordingly to business needs.
Finally, since this won't happen in a short period, the more we go "outside" of the ethereum world, the more we should be aware of the possibility to just have a sentiment checks to understand if we are still going in a direction that is aligned with the vision of the dao.
I fully support this proposal. It's a no brainer to give more flexibility to developers using Orbit and at the same time potentially increase revenues for the DAO.
We are 100% in support of this. This both makes sense and is also a new revenue option for the DAO and developer guild. A question we have now is, what are going to be the first chain that will be deploying this tech? Are there any chains that have already signaled interest?
Additionally, how scaleable is this tech? Are there going to be issues with too many deployments in the future?
I support this proposal because it expands the Arbitrum Expansion Program beyond Ethereum, allowing projects to deploy Orbit chains on other networks. This can significantly increase revenue for ArbitrumDAO, enhance EVM and Stylus dominance, and provide greater flexibility for developers. The expansion addresses industry demand and supports Arbitrum's growth and adaptability in a competitive landscape.
I support the proposal to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain. This initiative can enhance Arbitrum's tech stack adoption and open new revenue streams. It will also promote the EVM, benefiting Ethereum by driving its adoption.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Although I believe that past discussions about the 'Ethereum-aligned' chain have been constructive, I think the technology should be viewed as agnostic and its demand should be met to benefit the DAO and foster ecosystem growth.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Although I believe that past discussions about the 'Ethereum-aligned' chain have been constructive, I think the technology should be viewed as agnostic and its demand should be met to benefit the DAO and foster ecosystem growth.
In this regard, I I would like to know if the @Arbitrum Foundation intends for the benefits of this Expansion Program to go to the DAO treasury or the Foundation's treasury. From the current terms of the license agreement, it appears that the revenue share benefits the Foundation. To move forward with this proposal on Tally, I would like to see a modification of these terms to favor the DAO and to have the payment terms clearly detailed.
I voted for this proposal on snapshot. Allowing more chains to adopt the Arbitrum tech and share revenue with the DAO only benefits overall. Arbitrum can get more market share and the DAO more revenue to be sustainable.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I believe this proposal is good for Arbitrum because it drives adoption of our tech stack and because it opens up new revenue opportunities. I believe this proposal is good for Ethereum because it drives adoption of the EVM, which is Ethereum's most important moat IMO.
This is a welcome development, and I support it.
Aside from the obvious financial benefits, this proposal will increase Arbitrum's value and attention in other ecosystems. If there is a demand for our product and we don't offer it, someone somewhere will fill it up.
The Treasure ARC is supportive of this proposal, especially as it coming from potential customers.
I am confident that this proposal will not lead to a reduction in EVM dominance
Therefore, this is definitely a good topic for the development of Arbitrum
This is a clear expansion opportunity, the argument that this might reduce EVM dominance won't matter because if Orbit isn't available, others will fill this niche. Getting there first makes the most sense for the DAO.
Comment on behalf of Camelot
From a business and economic standpoint, it makes sense to aggressively expand to other chains given the many competing alternatives. We've already started to see this with projects like Degen chain and experimental approaches involving BTC L2s.
Comment on behalf of Camelot
From a business and economic standpoint, it makes sense to aggressively expand to other chains given the many competing alternatives. We've already started to see this with projects like Degen chain and experimental approaches involving BTC L2s.
However, we believe this expansion shouldn't come at the expense of EVM chains. We prefer to have a solid foundation on those only rather than a less stable expansion across multiple platforms.
Currently, we see areas for improvement in the existing Orbit offering based on our experiences and the challenges we've encountered. Key points for improvement include enhancing bridging solutions, improving overall interoperability, and increasing the available infra services. Focusing on these improvements within EVM chains could be more beneficial before considering further expansion.
Ultimately, the decision depends on the current workload and resources of the OCL development team, as each expansion to a new vm will require significant effort and ongoing maintenance. Greater visibility into these factors would definitely help everyone provide more informed feedback.
Personally, I think low-barrier mass expansion is the play for orbit. If 50 non-ETH are deployed and even 3 are economically successful, I think it’s worth it. But at the developer penetration level, expanding outside the current ETH dev bubble is a powerful trojan because now you have 50 dev teams that have been arbitrum pilled.
Lots of L1/L2s are selecting evmos (or cosmos sdk) to then build new blockchains tapping into the evm dev pool. I think compared to evmos, this is actually more eth aligned, especially if the foundation converts the fee proceeds to the eth token.
I am voting 'FOR' this proposal as it advances the adoption of the Arbitrum VM through a wider installed base and improves the chances of us being positioned as the preferred execution and rollup environment for web3. There are valid concerns about the governance of the Arbitrum Expansion Program and potential open sourcing of Orbit, while we should discuss those this proposal should be approved on its own merits.
Arbitrum One is ethereum’s largest scaling environment and the strongest asset of the DAO, don’t think there is much doubt that we are deeply ETH aligned but it doesn't mean we need to ETH maximalists to the detriment of the wider adoption that grows Arbitrum and eventually Arbitrum One (which settles on Ethereum) as our primary hub.
Looking ahead, Arbitrum One could serve as the central hub connecting Ethereum with various chains using Orbit, whether they settle on Arbitrum One, ethereum, other Ethereum L2s, different L1s, or as standalone L1s. The form that this connection, or light interop happens with Arbitrum One such as share sequencers or other solutions are not fully developed but having a common execution environment with these chains and who rely on us for further development of this VM positions us for that future.
I've been thinking about this for the past 2 days... agonizing over it really... and taking the risk of sounding really stupid, paranoid and even for sure indulging in some virtue signaling (which honestly, these are all "qualities" I know I have), here goes my current thinking on it:
it seems to me, that this proposal is some kind of trojan horse
why? well...
passing this proposal, like this, gives the still to be defined Arbitrum Developer Guild 20% of the 10% of the sequencer fees in these other blockchains, and I guess that this Arbitrum Developer Guild will then distribute that money in some still to be determined way that involves "the funds being appropriately distributed amongst its members" and by members they mean, core developers to Arbitrum that will have to go through some kind of membership application that is defined and controlled by someone? Offchain Labs? the Arbitrum Foundation? idfk...
The main problem is that this basically sounds like breaking the original promise of Arbitrum, where all of the fees will go to the Arbitrum DAO. It's obviously not that simple, but that's roughly the original intent of Arbitrum as an Ethereum L2 governed by a DAO, right? That's what makes us different from... you know... the other Ethereum L2s, right? See here for more details on the current fee distribution. There is no other precedent of sharing fees to any other entity other than the Arbitrum DAO, except for 20% of the L2 Base Fee in Arbitrum Nova, that goes "to parties running Nova Validators / the DAC".
so... passing this proposal, this specific snapshot proposal that ends today, this offchain, non-constitutional quorum threshold bound, Arbitrum Foundation authored proposal... opens the door, and gives legitimacy, to change where the fees go... in ALL other blockchains that are not Ethereum... right?
keep in mind that, as far as I'm aware, the original Arbitrum Expansion Program was not voted on by the Arbitrum DAO. So as of today, it has no legitimacy whatsoever. So, now... to come up with this proposal, calling it a "change" to a non legitimized program that the Arbitrum Foundation announced in January in a forum post that had literally zero feedback from delegates on it... is kinda weird, no?
Even more, to make it an offchain only vote, and bound to the lowest non-constitutional quorum threshold... even weirder...
Am I the crazy one here? I'm fully aware that I'm sounding like this guy... so please... tell me what I'm missing in here... I really hope I'm missing something here... please... I beg you...
and also... of course... this proposal passing gives legitimacy to the possibility that Arbitrum could stop being the Ethereum L2 that it is, and becoming something else... something we still don't know what it is, how much effort it's gonna take, how much of a priority it's gonna be for OCL and the Foundation, etc, etc...
as I said before, in my opinion, this proposal violates the first community value in our constitution, of being "Ethereum-aligned". and the more I look into this proposal... the weirder it gets.
this proposal should not pass. if it passes, it will change the direction of Arbitrum substantially.
After a lot of back and forth on this one, I will be voting "For" this proposal.
Realistically whether Arbitrum gets involved or not, some version of rollups will be deployed on non-Ethereum chains. So while I strongly value the Ethereum relationship, Arbitrum will be shooting itself in the foot if it fails to expand in this way. I also am hopefully this type of collaboration can lead to some really powerful technical advancements in the future.
I'll caution that this has the huge potential to take time away from Ethereum specific development. I think it is important that these outside projects don't materially take away from what's being built on Ethereum as it still is the #1 smart contract network.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We are in support of expanding the deployment of Orbit chains to alternative networks. This is an opportunity for Arbitrum to increase its presence on numerous other ecosystems, while simultaneously attaining more sources of revenue. The success of a couple of these new Orbit chains could amount to decent inflows–although this is currently a premature assumption.
Yes, Arbitrum is Eth-aligned, but broadening the use of Orbit does not necessarily cannibalize the success of the EVM. It’s not like restricting Orbit development to Eth is materially increasing the competitive moat for Ethereum. The signaling here is simply that using Arbitrum’s technology is a ubiquitous resource, regardless where you decide to build–and for using this framework, you pay Arbitrum a cut. Such openness is the case with various other competitors. If the magnitude of pull that Orbit technology had towards drawing builders to Ethereum, then this would be a different conversation. As it currently stands, the impact Orbit has in terms of bringing value to Ethereum is not significant enough to justify forgoing development on alternative networks. We stand by this perspective as long as the Arb Foundation doesn’t largely divert their attention and resources to helping devs spin up Orbit chains on other networks. If the overhead related to expansion is too large, which the AF should be transparent about, then the DAO should revisit this topic.
I voted AGAINST this proposal.
I first heard about Arbitrum during Devcon, where it was introduced with a strong narrative centered on Ethereum scalability. I firmly believe that we should continue to follow this narrative rooted in settlement. Moving away from it could be complex in the long term, but I say this from my perspective as a web3 citizen aligned with the Ethereum journey.
Strategically speaking, as a DAO member, I understand that with Stylus as a language and Orbit as infrastructure, multiple settlements could exist beneath without necessarily compromising our core values and execution approach.
However, this brings new challenges, such as attracting new developers, encouraging projects to build on Arbitrum, and establishing a clear vision for growth that aligns everyone toward a common goal.
Genuinely, I don’t see that alignment yet, so my vote remains firmly in favor of staying true to Ethereum’s principles—without falling into maximalism, of course.
Looking ahead, if this proposal passes on-chain, I’d like to contribute more from a growth perspective to help drive the development of this Orbit ecosystem. Of course, I’d ensure that our communication keeps the values that initially brought us all together at the forefront.
Camelot is voting FOR the proposal of the Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow the deployment of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.
While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.
Camelot is voting FOR the proposal of the Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow the deployment of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.
While we understand this concern of Ethereum alignment, we want to take a more pragmatic approach based on the strong likelihood that rollups will be deployed on these other non-Ethereum chains regardless of they use Orbit. There, allowing Arbitrum to capture these markets will enable value to flow back to our Ethereum-aligned DAO, even if only partially, instead of to competitors who could be wholly unaligned.
We also believe that if Arbitrum technology becomes the most widely used in rollups, we will not only achieve greater alignment in mindshare but also experience positive secondary effects. These include increasing the number of developers and protocols that have a direct route into the Arbitrum ecosystem, for example to leverage Stylus and other features.
However, our vote is specific to the license and basis the assumption that the current roadmap and resources of the Foundation and OCL remain unchanged. At the current time, we would like to make it clear that whilst we are in favour of broadening the license use, we oppose that this comes at the expense of the current Ethereum-centric roadmap for Arbitrum. If this vote were to impact the current scope of development work we would appreciate insight and visibility from the Foundation and/or OCL respectively.
We agree with @krst and @paulofonseca opinions and believe that Arbitrum should remain aligned with the values of the Ethereum community. It is crucial to focus on building and growing within the Ethereum ecosystem rather than diverting resources and attention to other blockchains. Supporting Ethereum ensures that we contribute to a truly decentralized, permissionless, and trustless future of finance.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We view this step as progress toward the expansion of the DAO and the Arbitrum Network. Allowing orbit chains to deploy on multiple networks could increase the number of deployments which subsequently increases the DAO's revenue. We can leverage our tech stack to achieve greater contributions outside of Ethereum. This could also bring an advantage of Arbitrum's horizontal scaling solution against its competitors. Currently, there are 4 horizontal L3 ecosystems, the Superchain (Optimism), Hyperchain (zkSync), AggLayer (Polygon), and Arbitrum's Orbit chains. If we want to get ahead of those already building L3 ecosystems, we need to take additional risks, and one might be allowing orbit chains to branch outside the Ethereum L1. Arbitrum already hosts a large number of orbit chains, currently standing at around 50-53 orbit chains in development/launched. This puts Arbitrum ahead of zkSync and Polygon in terms of acquisition, but behind Optimism. We can allow for greater ecosystem development if we open the horizon.
finally someone said it! thank you @krst and @Sinkas! :clap:
I just want to remind everyone that "Ethereum-Aligned" is the first community value, in the constitution of the Arbitrum DAO.
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 AGAINST this proposal and encourage delegates who voted in favor of it to reconsider their position.
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 AGAINST this proposal and encourage delegates who voted in favor of it to reconsider their position.
First of all, we’d like to point out that we wouldn't need to have this discussion if the Arbitrum license was simply free and permissionless. If the goal is to spread Arbitrum technology, then this would probably be the best course of action. If we were discussing opening the license, then we would be supportive, but that's not what we're discussing right now.
We believe that extending the Arbitrum Expansion Program to non-Ethereum chains is a huge mistake. Not only is it a distraction from building on and growing Ethereum, but it potentially supports Ethereum’s direct competitors, including centralized and permissioned ones.
Arbitrum invested immense amounts of time and resources to build permissionless fraud proofs with BoLD, and we are paying millions in ETH to settle transactions on the mainnet for a reason. Now, if this proposal passes, we're sending a signal that all of this is unnecessary as, apparently, chains can settle, for example, to Binance Smart Chain, and they could even get Arbitrum Foundation’s support to do so. What should we do that for? For some doubtful future income from sequencer fees? We should be working on converting users from those other chains, not incentivizing them to go there.
Furthermore, this is just an unnecessary distraction. We have a lot to do in Ethereum alone, and we should not spread ourselves thin trying to build our presence in other ecosystems. Arbitrum has a very strong position as an Ethereum L2, and in our opinion, the DAO and the Foundation should focus on using this advantage instead of building from scratch elsewhere.
We assume that if we change the expansion program to allow deployments of Orbit chains on any blockchain, the Foundation will be involved in managing these Orbit chains (at least for validating and collecting revenue). Consequently, the Foundation would then, at one point, probably turn to the DAO for additional support, be it in terms of money or other resources. We do not want to allocate time and/or resources to such deployments as we feel it’s not prudent to do so.
Lastly, we don't agree that we should try to hedge the risk of Ethereum losing its position to other chains. In our view, Ethereum is our best bet right now to ensure that the future of finance is built on a truly decentralized, permissionless, trustless, credibly neutral layer. If, instead, it ends up being built on Binance Smart Chain or something similar, then it doesn't matter if Arbitrum secures its' position there, as that would be a case of winning a battle but losing the war.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of this proposal to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain. It is a necessary step for further ecosystem growth.
Voting FOR on this initiative.
One of the biggest strong point of Arbitrum is the tech stack, and we should leverage it as much as we can.
Voting FOR on this initiative.
One of the biggest strong point of Arbitrum is the tech stack, and we should leverage it as much as we can.
While some, as we discussed in calls, believe we should keep it more focused on the Eth world, there is a pragmatic consideration to do: if we don't do it, someone else will. And, likely, we are going in a world in which every dapp might just have his own chain; how big could be the network effect of having Arbitrum tech being the engine of 90% of the L2s and L3s in the world?
Still think we need to refine a bit the proposal. Specifically, we need to be able to monitor and analyse returns over time from specific chains, to understand where the effort should be put BD wise. We need to also understand the cost that offchain labs might have in term of supporting all of these chains, and in general manage the economy at scale. There is also potentially a merit in being able at some point to revise the numbers proposed above (10%) accordingly to business needs.
Finally, since this won't happen in a short period, the more we go "outside" of the ethereum world, the more we should be aware of the possibility to just have a sentiment checks to understand if we are still going in a direction that is aligned with the vision of the dao.
I fully support this proposal. It's a no brainer to give more flexibility to developers using Orbit and at the same time potentially increase revenues for the DAO.
We are 100% in support of this. This both makes sense and is also a new revenue option for the DAO and developer guild. A question we have now is, what are going to be the first chain that will be deploying this tech? Are there any chains that have already signaled interest?
Additionally, how scaleable is this tech? Are there going to be issues with too many deployments in the future?
I support this proposal because it expands the Arbitrum Expansion Program beyond Ethereum, allowing projects to deploy Orbit chains on other networks. This can significantly increase revenue for ArbitrumDAO, enhance EVM and Stylus dominance, and provide greater flexibility for developers. The expansion addresses industry demand and supports Arbitrum's growth and adaptability in a competitive landscape.
I support the proposal to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain. This initiative can enhance Arbitrum's tech stack adoption and open new revenue streams. It will also promote the EVM, benefiting Ethereum by driving its adoption.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Although I believe that past discussions about the 'Ethereum-aligned' chain have been constructive, I think the technology should be viewed as agnostic and its demand should be met to benefit the DAO and foster ecosystem growth.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Although I believe that past discussions about the 'Ethereum-aligned' chain have been constructive, I think the technology should be viewed as agnostic and its demand should be met to benefit the DAO and foster ecosystem growth.
In this regard, I I would like to know if the @Arbitrum Foundation intends for the benefits of this Expansion Program to go to the DAO treasury or the Foundation's treasury. From the current terms of the license agreement, it appears that the revenue share benefits the Foundation. To move forward with this proposal on Tally, I would like to see a modification of these terms to favor the DAO and to have the payment terms clearly detailed.
I voted for this proposal on snapshot. Allowing more chains to adopt the Arbitrum tech and share revenue with the DAO only benefits overall. Arbitrum can get more market share and the DAO more revenue to be sustainable.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I believe this proposal is good for Arbitrum because it drives adoption of our tech stack and because it opens up new revenue opportunities. I believe this proposal is good for Ethereum because it drives adoption of the EVM, which is Ethereum's most important moat IMO.
This is a welcome development, and I support it.
Aside from the obvious financial benefits, this proposal will increase Arbitrum's value and attention in other ecosystems. If there is a demand for our product and we don't offer it, someone somewhere will fill it up.
The Treasure ARC is supportive of this proposal, especially as it coming from potential customers.
I am confident that this proposal will not lead to a reduction in EVM dominance
Therefore, this is definitely a good topic for the development of Arbitrum
This is a clear expansion opportunity, the argument that this might reduce EVM dominance won't matter because if Orbit isn't available, others will fill this niche. Getting there first makes the most sense for the DAO.
Comment on behalf of Camelot
From a business and economic standpoint, it makes sense to aggressively expand to other chains given the many competing alternatives. We've already started to see this with projects like Degen chain and experimental approaches involving BTC L2s.
Comment on behalf of Camelot
From a business and economic standpoint, it makes sense to aggressively expand to other chains given the many competing alternatives. We've already started to see this with projects like Degen chain and experimental approaches involving BTC L2s.
However, we believe this expansion shouldn't come at the expense of EVM chains. We prefer to have a solid foundation on those only rather than a less stable expansion across multiple platforms.
Currently, we see areas for improvement in the existing Orbit offering based on our experiences and the challenges we've encountered. Key points for improvement include enhancing bridging solutions, improving overall interoperability, and increasing the available infra services. Focusing on these improvements within EVM chains could be more beneficial before considering further expansion.
Ultimately, the decision depends on the current workload and resources of the OCL development team, as each expansion to a new vm will require significant effort and ongoing maintenance. Greater visibility into these factors would definitely help everyone provide more informed feedback.
Personally, I think low-barrier mass expansion is the play for orbit. If 50 non-ETH are deployed and even 3 are economically successful, I think it’s worth it. But at the developer penetration level, expanding outside the current ETH dev bubble is a powerful trojan because now you have 50 dev teams that have been arbitrum pilled.
Lots of L1/L2s are selecting evmos (or cosmos sdk) to then build new blockchains tapping into the evm dev pool. I think compared to evmos, this is actually more eth aligned, especially if the foundation converts the fee proceeds to the eth token.
The Treasure ARC is supportive of this proposal, especially as it coming from potential customers.
Over the past few weeks, the Arbitrum Foundation has received inbound interest from projects that want to deploy their own Orbit chain on other networks including, but not limited to: Bitcoin, Binance Smart Chain, Cosmos, and others. We expect this type of interest to increase over time as the Arbitrum Tech Stack gains popularity on Ethereum.
We would like to ensure that this is done in a way that does not compromise development/support for EVM chains as Orbit is still nascent.
The OCL development team prioritizes say BTC, BNB etc. over other chains. Echoing Camelot's comment here.
This would require significant development and support effort and it would be good for the DAO to have additional insight into which chains would be prioritized.
Personally, I think low-barrier mass expansion is the play for orbit. If 50 non-ETH are deployed and even 3 are economically successful, I think it’s worth it. But at the developer penetration level, expanding outside the current ETH dev bubble is a powerful trojan because now you have 50 dev teams that have been arbitrum pilled.
Lots of L1/L2s are selecting evmos (or cosmos sdk) to then build new blockchains tapping into the evm dev pool. I think compared to evmos, this is actually more eth aligned, especially if the foundation converts the fee proceeds to the eth token.
I am fully on board with friction-free satellite orbit deployments to other corners of the metaverse.
Will leave you with this fitting video on my feelings
This is an interesting problem to say the least, while allowing other chains does lead to increased revenue for the DAO, it also may lead to declining EVM dominance. In my opinion it is not possible to restrict development of technology on any chain, even if we decided not to allow other chains to fork arbitrum codebase, the builder will just choose another solution and go about their deployment.
Hence I think that the DAO should consider allowing other chains to use the Arbitrum codebase and perhaps we can increase the fees by a few bps for deployment on other chains to still incentivitze folks to build on Ethereum, but also capitalising on the fact that the technology which is in demand can be leveraged to fuel the Arbitrum DAO.
This is an interesting problem to say the least, while allowing other chains does lead to increased revenue for the DAO, it also may lead to declining EVM dominance. In my opinion it is not possible to restrict development of technology on any chain, even if we decided not to allow other chains to fork arbitrum codebase, the builder will just choose another solution and go about their deployment.
Hence I think that the DAO should consider allowing other chains to use the Arbitrum codebase and perhaps we can increase the fees by a few bps for deployment on other chains to still incentivitze folks to build on Ethereum, but also capitalising on the fact that the technology which is in demand can be leveraged to fuel the Arbitrum DAO.
Is there any solution to permissionlessly bridge fees back to Arbitrum DAO instead of collecting the fees in a multi-sig?
The Treasure ARC is supportive of this proposal, especially as it coming from potential customers.
Over the past few weeks, the Arbitrum Foundation has received inbound interest from projects that want to deploy their own Orbit chain on other networks including, but not limited to: Bitcoin, Binance Smart Chain, Cosmos, and others. We expect this type of interest to increase over time as the Arbitrum Tech Stack gains popularity on Ethereum.
We would like to ensure that this is done in a way that does not compromise development/support for EVM chains as Orbit is still nascent.
The OCL development team prioritizes say BTC, BNB etc. over other chains. Echoing Camelot's comment here.
This would require significant development and support effort and it would be good for the DAO to have additional insight into which chains would be prioritized.
Personally, I think low-barrier mass expansion is the play for orbit. If 50 non-ETH are deployed and even 3 are economically successful, I think it’s worth it. But at the developer penetration level, expanding outside the current ETH dev bubble is a powerful trojan because now you have 50 dev teams that have been arbitrum pilled.
Lots of L1/L2s are selecting evmos (or cosmos sdk) to then build new blockchains tapping into the evm dev pool. I think compared to evmos, this is actually more eth aligned, especially if the foundation converts the fee proceeds to the eth token.
I am fully on board with friction-free satellite orbit deployments to other corners of the metaverse.
Will leave you with this fitting video on my feelings
This is an interesting problem to say the least, while allowing other chains does lead to increased revenue for the DAO, it also may lead to declining EVM dominance. In my opinion it is not possible to restrict development of technology on any chain, even if we decided not to allow other chains to fork arbitrum codebase, the builder will just choose another solution and go about their deployment.
Hence I think that the DAO should consider allowing other chains to use the Arbitrum codebase and perhaps we can increase the fees by a few bps for deployment on other chains to still incentivitze folks to build on Ethereum, but also capitalising on the fact that the technology which is in demand can be leveraged to fuel the Arbitrum DAO.
This is an interesting problem to say the least, while allowing other chains does lead to increased revenue for the DAO, it also may lead to declining EVM dominance. In my opinion it is not possible to restrict development of technology on any chain, even if we decided not to allow other chains to fork arbitrum codebase, the builder will just choose another solution and go about their deployment.
Hence I think that the DAO should consider allowing other chains to use the Arbitrum codebase and perhaps we can increase the fees by a few bps for deployment on other chains to still incentivitze folks to build on Ethereum, but also capitalising on the fact that the technology which is in demand can be leveraged to fuel the Arbitrum DAO.
Is there any solution to permissionlessly bridge fees back to Arbitrum DAO instead of collecting the fees in a multi-sig?
