Proposal [Non-constitutional]: One-Time ARB Donation to Givewell’s Top Charities Fund
Abstract
We propose a one-time charitable donation of ARB from the Arbitrum DAO’s Treasury to Givewell’s Top Charities fund.
We note that we, @GrangerIinclident are in no way affiliated with Givewell, and that as of posting this, Givewell has not in any way been consulted or informed about this proposal.
Motivation
We believe there are many strong reasons that the Abitrum DAO should consider a donation to a charitable organization unaffiliated with the Arbitrum ecosystem. We list three reasons here in order of what we believe are their strengths (starting with the strongest).
Why Givewell
We give three reasons why we choose Givewell’s Top Charities fund as the recipient of this charitable donation:
Specifications
We suggest a donation of 5 Million ARB.
If there’s positive momentum supporting this proposal but debate on the amount to give, different options for the donation amount can be included in the snapshot poll.
The donation will be sent from the Arbitrum DAO Treasury. There are several options for transferring the funds to Givewell
We believe option 3 may involve unnecessary technical complexity, but we include it for consideration regardless.
We suggest that if direct communication with Givewell is necessary, the Arbitrum Foundation should handle this as representatives of the Arbitrum DAO.
Note that regardless of the path taken, the DAO and Foundation should follow all of Givewell donations guidelines and policies.
Steps to Implement:
We look forward to discussion and feedback from the community!
content hash: c422af8b5e2b1d27e6e1f97944a015b2724ce3c6d9de3f139d205320c348d5b2
Proposal [Non-constitutional]: One-Time ARB Donation to Givewell’s Top Charities Fund
Abstract
We propose a one-time charitable donation of ARB from the Arbitrum DAO’s Treasury to Givewell’s Top Charities fund.
We note that we, @GrangerIinclident are in no way affiliated with Givewell, and that as of posting this, Givewell has not in any way been consulted or informed about this proposal.
Motivation
We believe there are many strong reasons that the Abitrum DAO should consider a donation to a charitable organization unaffiliated with the Arbitrum ecosystem. We list three reasons here in order of what we believe are their strengths (starting with the strongest).
Why Givewell
We give three reasons why we choose Givewell’s Top Charities fund as the recipient of this charitable donation:
Specifications
We suggest a donation of 5 Million ARB.
If there’s positive momentum supporting this proposal but debate on the amount to give, different options for the donation amount can be included in the snapshot poll.
The donation will be sent from the Arbitrum DAO Treasury. There are several options for transferring the funds to Givewell
We believe option 3 may involve unnecessary technical complexity, but we include it for consideration regardless.
We suggest that if direct communication with Givewell is necessary, the Arbitrum Foundation should handle this as representatives of the Arbitrum DAO.
Note that regardless of the path taken, the DAO and Foundation should follow all of Givewell donations guidelines and policies.
Steps to Implement:
We look forward to discussion and feedback from the community!
content hash: c422af8b5e2b1d27e6e1f97944a015b2724ce3c6d9de3f139d205320c348d5b2
Thanks @thedevanshmehta. While we suspect this view —
Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way
Thanks @thedevanshmehta. While we suspect this view —
Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way
would be shared by many in the DAO, we want to emphasize the importance and value of a charity donation without any expectation of reciprocity; where the only direct benefits to the DAO (positive optics and reputation) are second order and incidental. We believe requiring the recipient to perform some additional on chain action is antithetical to this spirit.
We recognize many may currently see this actual as radical or misaligned with the DAO's core mission, and thus welcome discussion and debate.
Thanks for the response @cp0x! Some thoughts:
I think it’s wrong to simply send money to someone unknown because the DAO has large reserves of tokens.
Thanks for the response @cp0x! Some thoughts:
I think it’s wrong to simply send money to someone unknown because the DAO has large reserves of tokens.
We tend to believe that the norm for DAOs that control large sums of wealth should be analogous to successful businesses and high net-worth individuals; it should be expected that while they will mostly apply their wealth towards their core missions and goals, some portion of it should go towards charities with the intent of doing good more broadly.
We also emphasize that we aren't suggesting a donation to "someone unknown", but to a highly reputable organization (and via the appropriate means).
ArbitrumDAO already has a positive public perception
While this may be true from within the Web3 space, we believe the perception of Web3 from external parties more broadly is still largely negative, and initiatives like this could help to improve it.
Thanks @thedevanshmehta. While we suspect this view —
Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way
Thanks @thedevanshmehta. While we suspect this view —
Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way
would be shared by many in the DAO, we want to emphasize the importance and value of a charity donation without any expectation of reciprocity; where the only direct benefits to the DAO (positive optics and reputation) are second order and incidental. We believe requiring the recipient to perform some additional on chain action is antithetical to this spirit.
We recognize many may currently see this actual as radical or misaligned with the DAO's core mission, and thus welcome discussion and debate.
Thanks for the response @cp0x! Some thoughts:
I think it’s wrong to simply send money to someone unknown because the DAO has large reserves of tokens.
Thanks for the response @cp0x! Some thoughts:
I think it’s wrong to simply send money to someone unknown because the DAO has large reserves of tokens.
We tend to believe that the norm for DAOs that control large sums of wealth should be analogous to successful businesses and high net-worth individuals; it should be expected that while they will mostly apply their wealth towards their core missions and goals, some portion of it should go towards charities with the intent of doing good more broadly.
We also emphasize that we aren't suggesting a donation to "someone unknown", but to a highly reputable organization (and via the appropriate means).
ArbitrumDAO already has a positive public perception
While this may be true from within the Web3 space, we believe the perception of Web3 from external parties more broadly is still largely negative, and initiatives like this could help to improve it.
I share the values that @cp0x exposed here. There is no reasoning about the amounts and we are talking about big money. The DAO should be working towards improving the ecosystem and sustanaibility. I do endorse making donations but imo those should be donations from individuals and not from DAOs unless there is strategic reasoning for that
I don't come at this idea from the aspect of mutual benefit, more that the current fundraising structures in nonprofits are broken and we make much more impact by insisting that any organization wanting philanthropic dollars from us mint an impact artifact of theirs onchain which we would be happy to purchase
Grant agreements are like service contracts, benefiting incumbents with a built up reputation. Impact artifacts are products that we purchase, opening the way for even startup nonprofits to compete on a level playing field by creating good impact and recording it onchain for us to purchase.
I don't come at this idea from the aspect of mutual benefit, more that the current fundraising structures in nonprofits are broken and we make much more impact by insisting that any organization wanting philanthropic dollars from us mint an impact artifact of theirs onchain which we would be happy to purchase
Grant agreements are like service contracts, benefiting incumbents with a built up reputation. Impact artifacts are products that we purchase, opening the way for even startup nonprofits to compete on a level playing field by creating good impact and recording it onchain for us to purchase.
Otherwise all we go by is reputation (givewell top charity, has to be good lets donate). Which i really can't get behind
Appreciate the effort in drafting the proposal!
I have been in the space of crypto x philanthropy for 3 years now, through my nonprofit VoiceDeck that funds investigative reporters based on impact of their stories
Appreciate the effort in drafting the proposal!
I have been in the space of crypto x philanthropy for 3 years now, through my nonprofit VoiceDeck that funds investigative reporters based on impact of their stories
I am against this proposal in its current form. I don't think its healthy for web3 x web2 charity funding to be a one way street , where arbitrum funds these projects and they happily utilize the funding and this is the end of the story.
instead, have some requirement of these charities minting some artifact of theirs onchain (could be their database, annual impact reports, etc). When we then give funds to them, it results in an exchange between the artifact they created and funds we send them.
Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way. we also want to redefine the relationship of grantor - grantee to that of product - customer.
In my opinion, it is better to help specific crypto cases, such as oppression and persecution of developers and overly strict regulations in various parts of the world. My arguments:
I share the values that @cp0x exposed here. There is no reasoning about the amounts and we are talking about big money. The DAO should be working towards improving the ecosystem and sustanaibility. I do endorse making donations but imo those should be donations from individuals and not from DAOs unless there is strategic reasoning for that
I don't come at this idea from the aspect of mutual benefit, more that the current fundraising structures in nonprofits are broken and we make much more impact by insisting that any organization wanting philanthropic dollars from us mint an impact artifact of theirs onchain which we would be happy to purchase
Grant agreements are like service contracts, benefiting incumbents with a built up reputation. Impact artifacts are products that we purchase, opening the way for even startup nonprofits to compete on a level playing field by creating good impact and recording it onchain for us to purchase.
I don't come at this idea from the aspect of mutual benefit, more that the current fundraising structures in nonprofits are broken and we make much more impact by insisting that any organization wanting philanthropic dollars from us mint an impact artifact of theirs onchain which we would be happy to purchase
Grant agreements are like service contracts, benefiting incumbents with a built up reputation. Impact artifacts are products that we purchase, opening the way for even startup nonprofits to compete on a level playing field by creating good impact and recording it onchain for us to purchase.
Otherwise all we go by is reputation (givewell top charity, has to be good lets donate). Which i really can't get behind
Appreciate the effort in drafting the proposal!
I have been in the space of crypto x philanthropy for 3 years now, through my nonprofit VoiceDeck that funds investigative reporters based on impact of their stories
Appreciate the effort in drafting the proposal!
I have been in the space of crypto x philanthropy for 3 years now, through my nonprofit VoiceDeck that funds investigative reporters based on impact of their stories
I am against this proposal in its current form. I don't think its healthy for web3 x web2 charity funding to be a one way street , where arbitrum funds these projects and they happily utilize the funding and this is the end of the story.
instead, have some requirement of these charities minting some artifact of theirs onchain (could be their database, annual impact reports, etc). When we then give funds to them, it results in an exchange between the artifact they created and funds we send them.
Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way. we also want to redefine the relationship of grantor - grantee to that of product - customer.
In my opinion, it is better to help specific crypto cases, such as oppression and persecution of developers and overly strict regulations in various parts of the world. My arguments: