Title – Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy
Abstract & Rationale - This proposal envisages a monetary contribution to DEF & Coin Center from the ArbitrumDAO to continue their policy, litigation & advocacy efforts in relation to open-source software & software developers' rights.
Steps to Implement - The steps to implement the AIP, including associated costs, manpower, and other resources for each step where applicable. For the avoidance of doubt, any AIPs involving transactions with third parties (such as grants) will need to ensure that applicable legal documentation and procedures are also included.
Timeline - TBA
Overall Cost - [Dependant on DAO vote]:
Proposal authored by Axis Advisory
Context & Preamble
The digital asset industry has been faced with recent legal challenges in relation to a software developer’s individual freedom to contribute to the development and subsequent deployment of open-source permissionless software. This goes as far back as 1990 when Phil Zimmerman released Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), one of the first openly available public-key cryptography applications that featured end-to-end (E2E) encryption. Zimmerman’s creation prompted a criminal investigation that was eventually dropped, resulting in federal court decisions that protect encryption under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. This clash on personal privacy became dubbed the “encryption wars.”
Our team over at Axis Advisory has published a write-up that offers contextual information in relation to the above: https://axisadvisoryxyz.substack.com/p/defending-open-source-a-united-stand
In this regard, we are proposing a contribution from the ArbitrumDAO to DEF & CoinCenter to continue their policy & litigation efforts in relation to privacy-enhancement tooling and software developer advocacy. Some of the institutions' most notable contributions with an industry-wide impact will be noted hereunder:
COIN CENTER
[Refer: https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-is-suing-ofac-over-its-tornado-cash-sanction/].
[Refer: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.447304/gov.uscourts.flnd.447304.74.0.pdf];
DEFI EDUCATION FUND
Some of the DeFi Education Fund’s most notable contributions with an industry-wide impact will be noted hereunder:
[Refer: https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_0b48beb0dd404637b4d988988b1bf3fc.pdf].
[Refer: https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_3f7a8f2ca6614d7381122cb1beeed4a8.pdf].
[Refer: https://www.coinlive.com/news/DeFi-Education-Fund-Files-Amicus-Brief-In-Coinbase-Case].
[Refer: https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_063f9d1fd563466cadfa3f5434f918e9.pdf].
OBJECTIVE
Coin Center Contribution
The ArbitrumDAO is being provided the opportunity to vote & effect a contribution to Coin Center; the leading non-profit research and advocacy center focused on the public policy issues facing cryptocurrency and decentralized computing technologies.
By way of a brief; Coin Center’s mission is to defend the rights of individuals to build and use free and open cryptocurrency networks: the right to write and publish code – to read and to run it. The right to assemble into peer-to-peer networks. And the right to do all this privately.
Coin Center has been at the forefront of policy research, educating policymakers and the media about cryptocurrencies, advocating for sound public policy, and engaging in litigation to defend digital civil liberties of software developers and other stakeholders within the industry.
DeFi Education Fund Contribution
The ArbitrumDAO is being provided the opportunity to vote & effect a contribution to the DEF whose mission revolves around educating policymakers globally about DeFi, promoting grassroots supports, enhancing legal support across jurisdictions, and advocating for policies welcoming of decentralized financial infrastructure.
They have initiated several key projects and grants to advance its objectives. One of their initial endeavors targeted a group of organizations and individuals, with the goal of expanding the understanding of decentralization and the DeFi ecosystem among policymakers.
Additionally, the DEF is taking a stand against how some governments interpret laws in a way that could establish a troubling precedent, potentially discouraging software developers in various fields. They pointed out the risk that developers might face legal action for their open-source code if it is misused by other for illegal activities. This could place developers are risk of being held criminally responsible for actions they didn’t partake in, possibly affecting them years or even decades later.
CONTRIBUTION TO COIN CENTER [A NOTE FROM THE ORGANIZATION]
Founded in 2014, Coin Center is an independent non-profit organization focused on the public policy issues facing cryptocurrency and decentralized computing technologies. Our mission is to defend the rights of individuals to build and use free and open cryptocurrency networks: the right to write and publish code – to read and to run it. The right to assemble into peer-to-peer networks. And the right to do all this privately. We do this by producing and publishing policy research, educating policymakers and the media about cryptocurrencies, advocating for sound public policy, and by engaging in litigation to defend digital civil liberties.
We are presently litigating two cases against the U.S. government. One is on Section 6050I crypto tax reporting, pushing back against expanded warrantless financial surveillance. The other is a civil case challenging the U.S. Treasury Department’s designation of immutable smart contracts. We argue that the Treasury does not have the statutory authority to add the Tornado Cash pool contracts to the list of sanctioned persons because immutable smart contracts are neither sanctioned persons themselves nor the property of any sanctioned person. We are fighting not only for the right of U.S. persons to continue using these tools but also seeking to set an important precedent: that the Treasury Department can’t simply identify decentralized apps and add them to the sanctions list without any evidence that the app is controlled by or enriches any sanctioned person.
We are also coordinating with Roman Storm’s legal defense on an amicus brief in his criminal defense. Our amicus focuses on accurately describing the operation of Tornado Cash and the role that developers play in creating decentralized apps like Tornado Cash. We argue that publishing decentralized app software, both to the blockchain and to web servers, is not the kind of activity that can give rise to prohibitions under U.S. sanctions laws because (a) U.S. sanctions laws exclude from prohibitions any transactions for information or information materials and (b) the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects publishing software as “pure speech” warranting the strictest scrutiny from our courts.
Finally, we are continuously engaged in education and lobbying efforts in Congress and the various federal agencies in the U.S. to ensure that any changes to financial surveillance law does not impinge the free speech, privacy, and assembly rights of developers and users.
A grant to Coin Center will be used to support our ongoing work and to contribute to the legal defense of developers facing criminal prosecution.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the contributions mentioned above are not just a matter of protecting individual rights but a testament to our collective commitment to preserving the principles of innovation, decentralization, and individual sovereignty within the industry. By supporting this initiative, we affirm our dedication to upholding these principles and defending the right of developers to contribute to the deployment of permissionless open-source software without fear of reprisal or censorship.
Funding
We propose allocating up to 3 Million ARB to this endeavor; with delegates having the following voting choice via weighted voting.
Voting
The ArbitrumDAO has the following options to vote for in relation to effecting its contribution Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights:
Discussions
Call TBA
Title – Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy
Abstract & Rationale - This proposal envisages a monetary contribution to DEF & Coin Center from the ArbitrumDAO to continue their policy, litigation & advocacy efforts in relation to open-source software & software developers' rights.
Steps to Implement - The steps to implement the AIP, including associated costs, manpower, and other resources for each step where applicable. For the avoidance of doubt, any AIPs involving transactions with third parties (such as grants) will need to ensure that applicable legal documentation and procedures are also included.
Timeline - TBA
Overall Cost - [Dependant on DAO vote]:
Proposal authored by Axis Advisory
Context & Preamble
The digital asset industry has been faced with recent legal challenges in relation to a software developer’s individual freedom to contribute to the development and subsequent deployment of open-source permissionless software. This goes as far back as 1990 when Phil Zimmerman released Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), one of the first openly available public-key cryptography applications that featured end-to-end (E2E) encryption. Zimmerman’s creation prompted a criminal investigation that was eventually dropped, resulting in federal court decisions that protect encryption under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. This clash on personal privacy became dubbed the “encryption wars.”
Our team over at Axis Advisory has published a write-up that offers contextual information in relation to the above: https://axisadvisoryxyz.substack.com/p/defending-open-source-a-united-stand
In this regard, we are proposing a contribution from the ArbitrumDAO to DEF & CoinCenter to continue their policy & litigation efforts in relation to privacy-enhancement tooling and software developer advocacy. Some of the institutions' most notable contributions with an industry-wide impact will be noted hereunder:
COIN CENTER
[Refer: https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-is-suing-ofac-over-its-tornado-cash-sanction/].
[Refer: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.447304/gov.uscourts.flnd.447304.74.0.pdf];
DEFI EDUCATION FUND
Some of the DeFi Education Fund’s most notable contributions with an industry-wide impact will be noted hereunder:
[Refer: https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_0b48beb0dd404637b4d988988b1bf3fc.pdf].
[Refer: https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_3f7a8f2ca6614d7381122cb1beeed4a8.pdf].
[Refer: https://www.coinlive.com/news/DeFi-Education-Fund-Files-Amicus-Brief-In-Coinbase-Case].
[Refer: https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_063f9d1fd563466cadfa3f5434f918e9.pdf].
OBJECTIVE
Coin Center Contribution
The ArbitrumDAO is being provided the opportunity to vote & effect a contribution to Coin Center; the leading non-profit research and advocacy center focused on the public policy issues facing cryptocurrency and decentralized computing technologies.
By way of a brief; Coin Center’s mission is to defend the rights of individuals to build and use free and open cryptocurrency networks: the right to write and publish code – to read and to run it. The right to assemble into peer-to-peer networks. And the right to do all this privately.
Coin Center has been at the forefront of policy research, educating policymakers and the media about cryptocurrencies, advocating for sound public policy, and engaging in litigation to defend digital civil liberties of software developers and other stakeholders within the industry.
DeFi Education Fund Contribution
The ArbitrumDAO is being provided the opportunity to vote & effect a contribution to the DEF whose mission revolves around educating policymakers globally about DeFi, promoting grassroots supports, enhancing legal support across jurisdictions, and advocating for policies welcoming of decentralized financial infrastructure.
They have initiated several key projects and grants to advance its objectives. One of their initial endeavors targeted a group of organizations and individuals, with the goal of expanding the understanding of decentralization and the DeFi ecosystem among policymakers.
Additionally, the DEF is taking a stand against how some governments interpret laws in a way that could establish a troubling precedent, potentially discouraging software developers in various fields. They pointed out the risk that developers might face legal action for their open-source code if it is misused by other for illegal activities. This could place developers are risk of being held criminally responsible for actions they didn’t partake in, possibly affecting them years or even decades later.
CONTRIBUTION TO COIN CENTER [A NOTE FROM THE ORGANIZATION]
Founded in 2014, Coin Center is an independent non-profit organization focused on the public policy issues facing cryptocurrency and decentralized computing technologies. Our mission is to defend the rights of individuals to build and use free and open cryptocurrency networks: the right to write and publish code – to read and to run it. The right to assemble into peer-to-peer networks. And the right to do all this privately. We do this by producing and publishing policy research, educating policymakers and the media about cryptocurrencies, advocating for sound public policy, and by engaging in litigation to defend digital civil liberties.
We are presently litigating two cases against the U.S. government. One is on Section 6050I crypto tax reporting, pushing back against expanded warrantless financial surveillance. The other is a civil case challenging the U.S. Treasury Department’s designation of immutable smart contracts. We argue that the Treasury does not have the statutory authority to add the Tornado Cash pool contracts to the list of sanctioned persons because immutable smart contracts are neither sanctioned persons themselves nor the property of any sanctioned person. We are fighting not only for the right of U.S. persons to continue using these tools but also seeking to set an important precedent: that the Treasury Department can’t simply identify decentralized apps and add them to the sanctions list without any evidence that the app is controlled by or enriches any sanctioned person.
We are also coordinating with Roman Storm’s legal defense on an amicus brief in his criminal defense. Our amicus focuses on accurately describing the operation of Tornado Cash and the role that developers play in creating decentralized apps like Tornado Cash. We argue that publishing decentralized app software, both to the blockchain and to web servers, is not the kind of activity that can give rise to prohibitions under U.S. sanctions laws because (a) U.S. sanctions laws exclude from prohibitions any transactions for information or information materials and (b) the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects publishing software as “pure speech” warranting the strictest scrutiny from our courts.
Finally, we are continuously engaged in education and lobbying efforts in Congress and the various federal agencies in the U.S. to ensure that any changes to financial surveillance law does not impinge the free speech, privacy, and assembly rights of developers and users.
A grant to Coin Center will be used to support our ongoing work and to contribute to the legal defense of developers facing criminal prosecution.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the contributions mentioned above are not just a matter of protecting individual rights but a testament to our collective commitment to preserving the principles of innovation, decentralization, and individual sovereignty within the industry. By supporting this initiative, we affirm our dedication to upholding these principles and defending the right of developers to contribute to the deployment of permissionless open-source software without fear of reprisal or censorship.
Funding
We propose allocating up to 3 Million ARB to this endeavor; with delegates having the following voting choice via weighted voting.
Voting
The ArbitrumDAO has the following options to vote for in relation to effecting its contribution Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights:
Discussions
Call TBA
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/60?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/60?u=princetonblockchain
we are in support of this as we did during the Snapshot vote
Funding these efforts sends a powerful signal and helps sustain important advocacy work.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/56
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/55?u=blockworksresearch
"Developers' interests need to be ensured."
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/42?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/54?u=ocandocrypto
So glad to see us as a DAO supporting these fantastic organizations.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/41
Both of these organizations have consistently provided meaningful support on crucial areas of US litigation and public policy. We have personally witnessed their efforts forestalling poorly written legislation and in defending DAOs in court. Disclosure: GFX Labs authored an earlier proposal that was then included in this one.
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/17
Despite the change in the amount, I vote for help for software developers
Confirming snapshot vote, even if it's instead for 1M instead of 2.5M https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/4?u=jojo
Link too long, check the forum. TL;DR: Free the Tornado Cash devs
We see the good intentions. We support to fund with 500k and if they need more in the future, they can come themselves
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freed
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freed
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freed
Reason: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-softwa
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/23047/41
It's a good idea to support privacy-related projects in the court.
An important topic that every ecosystem of builders should support.
This is an important proposal concerning safeguarding the rights and privacy of software developers within the ArbitrumDAO contribution. Alt
https://t.ly/2aOLR
we are in support of this as we did during the Snapshot vote
Funding these efforts sends a powerful signal and helps sustain important advocacy work.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/56
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/55?u=blockworksresearch
"Developers' interests need to be ensured."
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/42?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/54?u=ocandocrypto
So glad to see us as a DAO supporting these fantastic organizations.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/41
Both of these organizations have consistently provided meaningful support on crucial areas of US litigation and public policy. We have personally witnessed their efforts forestalling poorly written legislation and in defending DAOs in court. Disclosure: GFX Labs authored an earlier proposal that was then included in this one.
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/17
Despite the change in the amount, I vote for help for software developers
Confirming snapshot vote, even if it's instead for 1M instead of 2.5M https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freedom/23047/4?u=jojo
Link too long, check the forum. TL;DR: Free the Tornado Cash devs
We see the good intentions. We support to fund with 500k and if they need more in the future, they can come themselves
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freed
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freed
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-software-freed
Reason: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-defending-open-source-a-united-stand-for-developer-rights-and-softwa
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/23047/41
It's a good idea to support privacy-related projects in the court.
An important topic that every ecosystem of builders should support.
This is an important proposal concerning safeguarding the rights and privacy of software developers within the ArbitrumDAO contribution. Alt
https://t.ly/2aOLR
Thank you for addressing my comments @thedevanshmehta.
As mentioned above, I am grateful to @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for drafting this proposal and would encourage delegates/voters to vote in favour despite the points I addressed upthread. It is clear that both this proposal and the DEF proposal will lead to better outcomes for developers building open-source software on crypto rails. Even though I still believe we should support Roman & Alexey directly, this is a step in the right direction.
Thank you for addressing my comments @thedevanshmehta.
As mentioned above, I am grateful to @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for drafting this proposal and would encourage delegates/voters to vote in favour despite the points I addressed upthread. It is clear that both this proposal and the DEF proposal will lead to better outcomes for developers building open-source software on crypto rails. Even though I still believe we should support Roman & Alexey directly, this is a step in the right direction.
As many other had voiced out. This proposal is a great step forward to fund initiatives that can help/aid projects move forward within our space. Even tho is not clearly stated that the funds will be used towards Roman and Alex defense, I hope they do get support from this initiative.
Thank you to @Immutablelawyer for drafting this revised proposal. Both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund (see proposal by GFXlabs) are doing extremely important work for the crypto ecosystem. I fully support both proposals and would also support a combined proposal.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey's legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties. A very scary future and it's naive to consider this anything but existential for DeFi as we know it. Ameen's tweet here summarized this nicely.
Thank you to @Immutablelawyer for drafting this revised proposal. Both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund (see proposal by GFXlabs) are doing extremely important work for the crypto ecosystem. I fully support both proposals and would also support a combined proposal.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey's legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties. A very scary future and it's naive to consider this anything but existential for DeFi as we know it. Ameen's tweet here summarized this nicely.
Arbitrum is the leading L2 for DeFi on Ethereum and imo it is very much in its best interests to ensure positive outcomes for Roman & Alexey's cases. This proposal indirectly supports their cases through actions like the recent amicus briefs filed by Coin Center and DEF. But they are running out of money and need direct, material support which this proposal will not provide.
In any case, I am grateful to @Immutablelawyer and the Arbitrum community for considering this proposal as well as its previous version.
As many other had voiced out. This proposal is a great step forward to fund initiatives that can help/aid projects move forward within our space. Even tho is not clearly stated that the funds will be used towards Roman and Alex defense, I hope they do get support from this initiative.
Thank you to @Immutablelawyer for drafting this revised proposal. Both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund (see proposal by GFXlabs) are doing extremely important work for the crypto ecosystem. I fully support both proposals and would also support a combined proposal.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey's legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties. A very scary future and it's naive to consider this anything but existential for DeFi as we know it. Ameen's tweet here summarized this nicely.
Thank you to @Immutablelawyer for drafting this revised proposal. Both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund (see proposal by GFXlabs) are doing extremely important work for the crypto ecosystem. I fully support both proposals and would also support a combined proposal.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey's legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties. A very scary future and it's naive to consider this anything but existential for DeFi as we know it. Ameen's tweet here summarized this nicely.
Arbitrum is the leading L2 for DeFi on Ethereum and imo it is very much in its best interests to ensure positive outcomes for Roman & Alexey's cases. This proposal indirectly supports their cases through actions like the recent amicus briefs filed by Coin Center and DEF. But they are running out of money and need direct, material support which this proposal will not provide.
In any case, I am grateful to @Immutablelawyer and the Arbitrum community for considering this proposal as well as its previous version.
Re: internationalisation
It's not just the 800 pound reserve currency gorilla nor the 600 pound regulatory chimp or 400 pound CBDC monkey, its a global grab ... err ... exertion of control via
Re: internationalisation
It's not just the 800 pound reserve currency gorilla nor the 600 pound regulatory chimp or 400 pound CBDC monkey, its a global grab ... err ... exertion of control via
Because of the rarified G2G membership requirements (do you see FTX being offered a Davos spot any more?) any policy counterpoint is basically ignored. I've hearsay of senior banking executes being "surplus to requirements" for even suggesting a closer look at crypto. In some countries with rule of law, you get a chance to air the oppression in public court but basically the whole state machinery is stacked unless you are small enough not to care (eg Marshall Islands) but that comes with its own risk of a Panama style regime change.
you are conflating means (money, language) with motive @cp0x ... means are neutral to the extent they are not customised with intention (eg a swiss army knife != stiletto) but motive, the mens rea (what goes in the person's head) is very much a factor is legal judgements. Now that we've disposed of the contributory aspects, go back to the original focus ... what should be in the minds of people designing DeFi tools given they could be used from by everyone from grandma to NKorean tinpot dictator ... apologies to all tinpots out there for the insulting comparison.
PS any anyone who tries the Szaboan stance of code'slaw is really going to get the full weight of court evidence of rebuttal xref hot pursuit ... to paraphrase 1 US judge " ok you claim you work in no jurisdiction, but now you're in front of me so mine is as good as none of the others"
Re: internationalisation
It's not just the 800 pound reserve currency gorilla nor the 600 pound regulatory chimp or 400 pound CBDC monkey, its a global grab ... err ... exertion of control via
Re: internationalisation
It's not just the 800 pound reserve currency gorilla nor the 600 pound regulatory chimp or 400 pound CBDC monkey, its a global grab ... err ... exertion of control via
Because of the rarified G2G membership requirements (do you see FTX being offered a Davos spot any more?) any policy counterpoint is basically ignored. I've hearsay of senior banking executes being "surplus to requirements" for even suggesting a closer look at crypto. In some countries with rule of law, you get a chance to air the oppression in public court but basically the whole state machinery is stacked unless you are small enough not to care (eg Marshall Islands) but that comes with its own risk of a Panama style regime change.
you are conflating means (money, language) with motive @cp0x ... means are neutral to the extent they are not customised with intention (eg a swiss army knife != stiletto) but motive, the mens rea (what goes in the person's head) is very much a factor is legal judgements. Now that we've disposed of the contributory aspects, go back to the original focus ... what should be in the minds of people designing DeFi tools given they could be used from by everyone from grandma to NKorean tinpot dictator ... apologies to all tinpots out there for the insulting comparison.
PS any anyone who tries the Szaboan stance of code'slaw is really going to get the full weight of court evidence of rebuttal xref hot pursuit ... to paraphrase 1 US judge " ok you claim you work in no jurisdiction, but now you're in front of me so mine is as good as none of the others"
you are conflating means (money, language) with motive @cp0x ... means are neutral to the extent they are not customised with intention (eg a swiss army knife != stiletto) but motive, the mens rea (what goes in the person's head) is very much a factor is legal judgements. Now that we've disposed of the contributory aspects, go back to the original focus ... what should be in the minds of people designing DeFi tools given they could be used from by everyone from grandma to NKorean tinpot dictator ... apologies to all tinpots out there for the insulting comparison.
PS any anyone who tries the Szaboan stance of code'slaw is really going to get the full weight of court evidence of rebuttal xref hot pursuit ... to paraphrase 1 US judge " ok you claim you work in no jurisdiction, but now you're in front of me so mine is as good as none of the others"
PPS Developers might have zilch interest in rarified international jurisprudence, but you can be sure international jurists will take a keen interest in secretive shadowy supercoders. Arbitrum participants can either take the plunge and deal with it NOW ... or deal with it whilst in involuntary vacation at His Majesty's (dis)pleasure.
PPPS ... imagine if the US unilaterally declared that any stablecoin pegged to the USD will become part of its custom zone and thus subject to its enforcement area unless excepted under existing bilateral agreements ... don't laugh ... it happened during prohibition. See current criminal knowledge in Samourai
your remark
in code we trust
is a little ironic since Walchian approach is
in code(rs) we t(h)rust
What is the principle at stake? I would argue that it is the difference between actual and constructive knowledge (plus its junior offshoot imputed
Let's run a thought experiment
a truck designer puts a speed governor so it doesn't spin out of control when going downhill
a mechanic puts in a switch (default on) to turn this governor off or on
the truck driver to make a deadline delivery turns it off to speedrun
Later on the journey back, the drivers son is taking the wheel (whilst dad sleeps) it skids out of control going down a slope and kills ... a black cat. Who is at fault?
a) the truck designer for not sealing the speed governor from interference b) the mechanic for weakening the desgn parameter c) the driver for not turing the governor back on d) the son for not checking the switch setting e) the "but for" test in that if the speed govenor wasn't available the driver wouldn't have turned it off
Now govt stupidity aside, the question for Arbitrum is to what degree open source developers should be responsible for the release of their code into the world where it might end up in the hand of idiocy (which includes NKackers).
The designer would say MIT license, I do not want any actual knowledge of what the software gets up to
The mechanic would say GPL-affero ... the end user has the final decision
The insurance company says sue eveyone and find out what sticks. But lets map this back onto Tornado Cash ... should there have been constructive knowledge the service could be exploited by (in US govt eyes) evildoers ... or is evil not a trait that should be a criteria for refusal of the service. Is the software a mere mechanical machine and not under any control? Is that socially responsible? Or is it not a question for the technical echo-chamber isolated from society.
Perhaps once Arbitrum users can come to consensus, retroPGF could be an option to reward those closest to the concensus view.
Generally speaking, we will respect the needs of the author including if they want a post deleted. Additionally, if it is needed, we'll delete posts and limit the ability to post on threads if it is distracting from the thread's topic. It has happened a few times now and it is not ideal, but the goal of moderating is to help ensure the discussion is concise and easily digested by the community.
you are conflating means (money, language) with motive @cp0x ... means are neutral to the extent they are not customised with intention (eg a swiss army knife != stiletto) but motive, the mens rea (what goes in the person's head) is very much a factor is legal judgements. Now that we've disposed of the contributory aspects, go back to the original focus ... what should be in the minds of people designing DeFi tools given they could be used from by everyone from grandma to NKorean tinpot dictator ... apologies to all tinpots out there for the insulting comparison.
PS any anyone who tries the Szaboan stance of code'slaw is really going to get the full weight of court evidence of rebuttal xref hot pursuit ... to paraphrase 1 US judge " ok you claim you work in no jurisdiction, but now you're in front of me so mine is as good as none of the others"
PPS Developers might have zilch interest in rarified international jurisprudence, but you can be sure international jurists will take a keen interest in secretive shadowy supercoders. Arbitrum participants can either take the plunge and deal with it NOW ... or deal with it whilst in involuntary vacation at His Majesty's (dis)pleasure.
PPPS ... imagine if the US unilaterally declared that any stablecoin pegged to the USD will become part of its custom zone and thus subject to its enforcement area unless excepted under existing bilateral agreements ... don't laugh ... it happened during prohibition. See current criminal knowledge in Samourai
your remark
in code we trust
is a little ironic since Walchian approach is
in code(rs) we t(h)rust
What is the principle at stake? I would argue that it is the difference between actual and constructive knowledge (plus its junior offshoot imputed
Let's run a thought experiment
a truck designer puts a speed governor so it doesn't spin out of control when going downhill
a mechanic puts in a switch (default on) to turn this governor off or on
the truck driver to make a deadline delivery turns it off to speedrun
Later on the journey back, the drivers son is taking the wheel (whilst dad sleeps) it skids out of control going down a slope and kills ... a black cat. Who is at fault?
a) the truck designer for not sealing the speed governor from interference b) the mechanic for weakening the desgn parameter c) the driver for not turing the governor back on d) the son for not checking the switch setting e) the "but for" test in that if the speed govenor wasn't available the driver wouldn't have turned it off
Now govt stupidity aside, the question for Arbitrum is to what degree open source developers should be responsible for the release of their code into the world where it might end up in the hand of idiocy (which includes NKackers).
The designer would say MIT license, I do not want any actual knowledge of what the software gets up to
The mechanic would say GPL-affero ... the end user has the final decision
The insurance company says sue eveyone and find out what sticks. But lets map this back onto Tornado Cash ... should there have been constructive knowledge the service could be exploited by (in US govt eyes) evildoers ... or is evil not a trait that should be a criteria for refusal of the service. Is the software a mere mechanical machine and not under any control? Is that socially responsible? Or is it not a question for the technical echo-chamber isolated from society.
Perhaps once Arbitrum users can come to consensus, retroPGF could be an option to reward those closest to the concensus view.
Generally speaking, we will respect the needs of the author including if they want a post deleted. Additionally, if it is needed, we'll delete posts and limit the ability to post on threads if it is distracting from the thread's topic. It has happened a few times now and it is not ideal, but the goal of moderating is to help ensure the discussion is concise and easily digested by the community.
I believe both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund are doing important work for the crypto ecosystem. Even if initially focused on the US, the consequence of their work cascades to all jurisdictions and all web3 projects.
Voted FOR on Tally - I'm supportive based on the previous rationale.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting FOR the donation to Coin Center and the DEF on Tally.
We haven't changed our stance since the Snapshot. We would've preferred to send a larger amount, but since that didn't get through on Snapshot, we definitely support the donation of 500k ARB to each of them.
What inspired you to propose the ArbitrumDAO's contribution to DEF and Coin Center for supporting software developers’ rights and the right to privacy?
This proposal has passed. Thank you to everyone who voted. You're making a difference.
I believe both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund are doing important work for the crypto ecosystem. Even if initially focused on the US, the consequence of their work cascades to all jurisdictions and all web3 projects.
Voted FOR on Tally - I'm supportive based on the previous rationale.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting FOR the donation to Coin Center and the DEF on Tally.
We haven't changed our stance since the Snapshot. We would've preferred to send a larger amount, but since that didn't get through on Snapshot, we definitely support the donation of 500k ARB to each of them.
What inspired you to propose the ArbitrumDAO's contribution to DEF and Coin Center for supporting software developers’ rights and the right to privacy?
This proposal has passed. Thank you to everyone who voted. You're making a difference.
DAOplomats voted in favor on Tally.
We maintained our decision from the temp check and happy seeing this get through the finish line.
I voted for this proposal with the 1M ARB each option. As contributors to open-source software, we rely on the policy, litigation & advocacy efforts of DEF and Coin Center to create a stable environment in which to work.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally with no change to my reasoning.
After the news of the arrest of Samurai wallet founders, extradition from Europe, and seize of the website, this initiative is even more important.
DAOplomats voted in favor of funding with 500k ARB each.
We know funding an initiative such as this is net positive and seeing all the work already done, we are in support.
DAOplomats voted in favor of funding with 500k ARB each.
We know funding an initiative such as this is net positive and seeing all the work already done, we are in support.
Yes, there have been questions about quantifying the funding but we see this as more of a public good than an outright proposal requesting funds to pursue an initiative. That said, we decided to lean towards supporting Coin Center and DEF with 500k each. It's not a lot for this cause, might not go a long way but shows our support.
In the future, if more funding is needed, we would appreciate if CC and DEF come themselves rather than through Immutablelawyer.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintained our Snapshot vote to fund 500k ARB each as we are generally supportive of the initiative and consider it important for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute to the cause.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
During the temp check, we voted in favor of the proposal and opted to allocate 1,000,000 ARB to each of the organizations. However, the option to fund each organization with 500,000 ARB was more popular, and the proposal went for an on-chain vote with that amount.
Given that we were prepared to support each organization with a larger amount, we obviously favor supporting them with a smaller one.
Voting FOR on Tally.
My stance remains firm; I continue to support research and advancements in respecting open-source rights. Currently, it is an uncertain area, and the future will undoubtedly be challenging in terms of defending these technologies.
Voting FOR on Tally.
My stance remains firm; I continue to support research and advancements in respecting open-source rights. Currently, it is an uncertain area, and the future will undoubtedly be challenging in terms of defending these technologies.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Tally.
As mentioned in our earlier comment, we think that this is an extremely important cause, but most of the points we have brought up have not been addressed. Specifically, it’s still unclear how the two recipients will continue updating the DAO on their developments and the usage of funds. However, we don’t think this warrants voting against this proposal.
I have decided to vote FOR the "ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy" proposal on Snapshot.
Rationale:
I have decided to vote FOR the "ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy" proposal on Snapshot.
Rationale:
As a passionate advocate of cypherpunk history, I recognize the pivotal importance of this proposal in safeguarding the rights of software developers and ensuring their right to privacy, particularly within the realms of open-source and decentralized software. These principles are foundational to the continued innovation and freedom in the tech community, and they resonate deeply with the ethos of the cypherpunk movement.
Comments:
I will cast my vote off-chain for the option to fund each organization with 500,000 ARB. This funding level represents a balanced approach, providing substantial support while ensuring prudent resource management. It is crucial that we monitor the effectiveness of this initial investment to determine if further support is needed based on tangible outcomes and impacts. This scalable funding strategy allows us to review and adjust our support, ensuring it continues to align with our objectives and delivers real results.
I also have some questions:
What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure we receive regular updates and maintain accountability regarding the use of funds? It's crucial that there be a clear and structured communication strategy to keep the DAO informed. How do they plan to engage with us, and what format will these updates take? I understand it's nothing clear at the moment but, I would say it's important.
Is there a strategic plan to enhance the visibility and impact of these organizations' efforts, both within and beyond the crypto community? Perhaps the DAO could support these efforts in some way. It's important to understand whether the expectation is for these organizations to work primarily behind the scenes, or if there are plans to actively promote their initiatives, which would further the cause of defending software developers’ rights and privacy.
All these queries aside from one were answered on the call w/CC & DEF.
By way of insight re. the formulation of the on-chain proposal - it will include further details on ;
Vesting, Comms.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is in favor of donating to Coin Center and the DEF.
Just as in the original Crypto Wars, we must once again take an active stand against government overreach. Coin Center and the DEF have been actively defending the industry through education and legal action, and we believe the Arbitrum DAO should send a strong message of support for their work.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is in favor of donating to Coin Center and the DEF.
Just as in the original Crypto Wars, we must once again take an active stand against government overreach. Coin Center and the DEF have been actively defending the industry through education and legal action, and we believe the Arbitrum DAO should send a strong message of support for their work.
Although we'd even be in favor of voting for the 1.5m ARB option, 500k and 1m are currently leading and quite close to each other. Therefore, we're voting FOR the 1m ARB option.
Savvy DAO has voted “100% for Fund with 500,000 ARB each” for the “Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom” proposal.
REASONING:
Savvy DAO has voted “100% for Fund with 500,000 ARB each” for the “Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom” proposal.
REASONING:
This funding decision aligns with the broader mission of supporting innovation and protecting the decentralized nature of blockchain development, which is central to Arbitrum and the wider blockchain community's ethos.
See Delegate thread here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/17?u=savvydao
Adding Feedback here: Savvy DAO votes FOR the proposal "ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights"
Key Reasons:
Savvy DAO supports this proposal for its strategic alignment with our values, defending digital liberties, and ensuring innovation in decentralized technologies
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be supporting the proposal during temp check and we’re voting to fund both organizations with 1,000,000 ARB each. We believe the amount is enough to materially support their cause and send a strong signal of support from Arbitrum DAO.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be supporting the proposal during temp check and we’re voting to fund both organizations with 1,000,000 ARB each. We believe the amount is enough to materially support their cause and send a strong signal of support from Arbitrum DAO.
We value the work that DeFi Education Fund and Coin Center are doing and we strongly believe it’s a net positive for the web3 ecosystem as a whole. Although we understand that a lot of delegates want the DAO to ensure that the funds are used specifically for the defense of Alexey and Roman, we think that we should trust the organizations to manage the funds as they see fit.
In our opinion, the most important thing we need to work on as a DAO is to ensure that the ARB we donate is converted to fiat in a sensible way to avoid a noticeable negative price impact on the ecosystem. The assistance of the Foundation could be helpful in that regard.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Snapshot.
First of all, thank you @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Snapshot.
First of all, thank you @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
It’s undeniable that this is an extremely important cause, and it makes sense for the Arbitrum DAO to support it. However, before being comfortable with voting on a funding amount on Snapshot, we think that more specifics have to be added to the proposal:
Apologies if some of the aforementioned details have already been answered during calls. Nevertheless, we feel that it’s important to have these specifics added to the proposal itself to create accountability, inform voters of any possible risks, and set good precedents for similar requests that may arise in the future.
I voted for this proposal with the 1M ARB each option. As contributors to open-source software, we rely on the policy, litigation & advocacy efforts of DEF and Coin Center to create a stable environment in which to work.
I will be voting in favour (FOR) this proposal choosing the 1M option. Open-source is a subject I hold dear and it makes sense for Arbitrum to sometimes fund initiatives for not only its own ecosystem but the industry as a whole. As @maxlomu mentioned, 1M ARB should be enough funding for them to succeed.
Thanks @Immutablelawyer for putting this proposal together.
I acknowledge the importance of the industry continuing to have a voice in the legal space, however I have concerns about the DAO directly funding legal cases against governmental entities. For this reason, I will be voting "Abstain".
Editing to save space: I will be maintaining my "Abstain" vote on Tally for the reasons noted above.
There are simpler examples.
DAOplomats voted in favor on Tally.
We maintained our decision from the temp check and happy seeing this get through the finish line.
I voted for this proposal with the 1M ARB each option. As contributors to open-source software, we rely on the policy, litigation & advocacy efforts of DEF and Coin Center to create a stable environment in which to work.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally with no change to my reasoning.
After the news of the arrest of Samurai wallet founders, extradition from Europe, and seize of the website, this initiative is even more important.
DAOplomats voted in favor of funding with 500k ARB each.
We know funding an initiative such as this is net positive and seeing all the work already done, we are in support.
DAOplomats voted in favor of funding with 500k ARB each.
We know funding an initiative such as this is net positive and seeing all the work already done, we are in support.
Yes, there have been questions about quantifying the funding but we see this as more of a public good than an outright proposal requesting funds to pursue an initiative. That said, we decided to lean towards supporting Coin Center and DEF with 500k each. It's not a lot for this cause, might not go a long way but shows our support.
In the future, if more funding is needed, we would appreciate if CC and DEF come themselves rather than through Immutablelawyer.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintained our Snapshot vote to fund 500k ARB each as we are generally supportive of the initiative and consider it important for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute to the cause.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
During the temp check, we voted in favor of the proposal and opted to allocate 1,000,000 ARB to each of the organizations. However, the option to fund each organization with 500,000 ARB was more popular, and the proposal went for an on-chain vote with that amount.
Given that we were prepared to support each organization with a larger amount, we obviously favor supporting them with a smaller one.
Voting FOR on Tally.
My stance remains firm; I continue to support research and advancements in respecting open-source rights. Currently, it is an uncertain area, and the future will undoubtedly be challenging in terms of defending these technologies.
Voting FOR on Tally.
My stance remains firm; I continue to support research and advancements in respecting open-source rights. Currently, it is an uncertain area, and the future will undoubtedly be challenging in terms of defending these technologies.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Tally.
As mentioned in our earlier comment, we think that this is an extremely important cause, but most of the points we have brought up have not been addressed. Specifically, it’s still unclear how the two recipients will continue updating the DAO on their developments and the usage of funds. However, we don’t think this warrants voting against this proposal.
I have decided to vote FOR the "ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy" proposal on Snapshot.
Rationale:
I have decided to vote FOR the "ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy" proposal on Snapshot.
Rationale:
As a passionate advocate of cypherpunk history, I recognize the pivotal importance of this proposal in safeguarding the rights of software developers and ensuring their right to privacy, particularly within the realms of open-source and decentralized software. These principles are foundational to the continued innovation and freedom in the tech community, and they resonate deeply with the ethos of the cypherpunk movement.
Comments:
I will cast my vote off-chain for the option to fund each organization with 500,000 ARB. This funding level represents a balanced approach, providing substantial support while ensuring prudent resource management. It is crucial that we monitor the effectiveness of this initial investment to determine if further support is needed based on tangible outcomes and impacts. This scalable funding strategy allows us to review and adjust our support, ensuring it continues to align with our objectives and delivers real results.
I also have some questions:
What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure we receive regular updates and maintain accountability regarding the use of funds? It's crucial that there be a clear and structured communication strategy to keep the DAO informed. How do they plan to engage with us, and what format will these updates take? I understand it's nothing clear at the moment but, I would say it's important.
Is there a strategic plan to enhance the visibility and impact of these organizations' efforts, both within and beyond the crypto community? Perhaps the DAO could support these efforts in some way. It's important to understand whether the expectation is for these organizations to work primarily behind the scenes, or if there are plans to actively promote their initiatives, which would further the cause of defending software developers’ rights and privacy.
All these queries aside from one were answered on the call w/CC & DEF.
By way of insight re. the formulation of the on-chain proposal - it will include further details on ;
Vesting, Comms.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is in favor of donating to Coin Center and the DEF.
Just as in the original Crypto Wars, we must once again take an active stand against government overreach. Coin Center and the DEF have been actively defending the industry through education and legal action, and we believe the Arbitrum DAO should send a strong message of support for their work.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is in favor of donating to Coin Center and the DEF.
Just as in the original Crypto Wars, we must once again take an active stand against government overreach. Coin Center and the DEF have been actively defending the industry through education and legal action, and we believe the Arbitrum DAO should send a strong message of support for their work.
Although we'd even be in favor of voting for the 1.5m ARB option, 500k and 1m are currently leading and quite close to each other. Therefore, we're voting FOR the 1m ARB option.
Savvy DAO has voted “100% for Fund with 500,000 ARB each” for the “Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom” proposal.
REASONING:
Savvy DAO has voted “100% for Fund with 500,000 ARB each” for the “Defending Open Source: A United Stand for Developer Rights and Software Freedom” proposal.
REASONING:
This funding decision aligns with the broader mission of supporting innovation and protecting the decentralized nature of blockchain development, which is central to Arbitrum and the wider blockchain community's ethos.
See Delegate thread here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/17?u=savvydao
Adding Feedback here: Savvy DAO votes FOR the proposal "ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights"
Key Reasons:
Savvy DAO supports this proposal for its strategic alignment with our values, defending digital liberties, and ensuring innovation in decentralized technologies
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be supporting the proposal during temp check and we’re voting to fund both organizations with 1,000,000 ARB each. We believe the amount is enough to materially support their cause and send a strong signal of support from Arbitrum DAO.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be supporting the proposal during temp check and we’re voting to fund both organizations with 1,000,000 ARB each. We believe the amount is enough to materially support their cause and send a strong signal of support from Arbitrum DAO.
We value the work that DeFi Education Fund and Coin Center are doing and we strongly believe it’s a net positive for the web3 ecosystem as a whole. Although we understand that a lot of delegates want the DAO to ensure that the funds are used specifically for the defense of Alexey and Roman, we think that we should trust the organizations to manage the funds as they see fit.
In our opinion, the most important thing we need to work on as a DAO is to ensure that the ARB we donate is converted to fiat in a sensible way to avoid a noticeable negative price impact on the ecosystem. The assistance of the Foundation could be helpful in that regard.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Snapshot.
First of all, thank you @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
Blockworks Research will vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal on Snapshot.
First of all, thank you @Immutablelawyer and Axis Advisory for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
It’s undeniable that this is an extremely important cause, and it makes sense for the Arbitrum DAO to support it. However, before being comfortable with voting on a funding amount on Snapshot, we think that more specifics have to be added to the proposal:
Apologies if some of the aforementioned details have already been answered during calls. Nevertheless, we feel that it’s important to have these specifics added to the proposal itself to create accountability, inform voters of any possible risks, and set good precedents for similar requests that may arise in the future.
I voted for this proposal with the 1M ARB each option. As contributors to open-source software, we rely on the policy, litigation & advocacy efforts of DEF and Coin Center to create a stable environment in which to work.
I will be voting in favour (FOR) this proposal choosing the 1M option. Open-source is a subject I hold dear and it makes sense for Arbitrum to sometimes fund initiatives for not only its own ecosystem but the industry as a whole. As @maxlomu mentioned, 1M ARB should be enough funding for them to succeed.
Thanks @Immutablelawyer for putting this proposal together.
I acknowledge the importance of the industry continuing to have a voice in the legal space, however I have concerns about the DAO directly funding legal cases against governmental entities. For this reason, I will be voting "Abstain".
Editing to save space: I will be maintaining my "Abstain" vote on Tally for the reasons noted above.
There are simpler examples.
@AbdullahUmar - We won't as, to be quite frank, this proposal (discussions, liasing w/stakeholders, delegates, contributors, CC & DEF, outside counsel of our own etc.), took up quite a bit of billable hours on my team's end that I naturally cannot afford to do on a continuous basis. The total cost on our end to get this proposal to Snapshot was 10k+ (in consideration of the factor aforementioned - but this is primarily billable hours + outside US Counsel which is naturally not free of charge - we are not US Lawyers, but have US Partners we utilise when we have US Inquiries).
Hence, unfortunately, our firm will not be serving as a liaison between the parties. However, I am sure that CC & DEF will not have any issues w/establishing a channel of communication w/the ArbitrumDAO - such as a monthly update call for example or some other form.
@AbdullahUmar - We won't as, to be quite frank, this proposal (discussions, liasing w/stakeholders, delegates, contributors, CC & DEF, outside counsel of our own etc.), took up quite a bit of billable hours on my team's end that I naturally cannot afford to do on a continuous basis. The total cost on our end to get this proposal to Snapshot was 10k+ (in consideration of the factor aforementioned - but this is primarily billable hours + outside US Counsel which is naturally not free of charge - we are not US Lawyers, but have US Partners we utilise when we have US Inquiries).
Hence, unfortunately, our firm will not be serving as a liaison between the parties. However, I am sure that CC & DEF will not have any issues w/establishing a channel of communication w/the ArbitrumDAO - such as a monthly update call for example or some other form.
I hope that clarifies our position :handshake:
To add; we did not (and won't) request a reimbursement or a payment for this - we deem the above as an indirect contribution from our end to this cause.
Given that the teams estimate a need of $500k for their current process, 1m ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
Appreciate the logic provided behind selecting 1 m ARB to each organization. I've followed your recommendation & gone with this amount too :pray:
Here are some comments from the UADP:
The legal terrain is a tough one to navigate, and it’s seldom top of mind for builders in the space until the community faces some sort of calamity. It’s therefore vital to fund groups that have the connections and competency to effectively court the ears of politicians and regulatory bodies. Both organizations have a strong history in shaping the landscape of digital asset regulation and defending the rights and freedoms within the blockchain community. Since we are by no means legal experts, we have resorted to the comments of folks more acclimated with this subject matter to decide our vote. Lobbying and litigation initiatives are quite expensive, so it doesn’t seem prudent to simply give the entities $500k each. It seems wiser to deploy $1M - $3M per organization so they can more effectively implement their plans. If we’re going to fund this, might as well make it worthwhile. An aspect that we hope will better be addressed in the future, however, is clearly reporting back to the DAO the successes and failures of the programs taken by Coin Center and DEF. Other DAOs have previously funded such groups, but they never returned to the DAO with KPIs and success metrics. We are curious if @Immutablelawyer/Axis will be actively involved as a liaison between CC/DEF and the DAO from a communications perspective.
We would like to thank @Immutablelawyer for coming up with this proposal and facilitating the communication between involved parties. After following the discussion here, we will support the proposal to fund the DeFi Education Fund and Coin Center as we believed that they are doing the improtant work for our industry.Our support is rooted in the commitment to protect open-source software development and uphold developers' rights. By supporting these organizations we could help improve legal clarity and defend privacy free speech within the web3 space. .
Based on the context on cost of $500k for their current process, 1M ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
gm all, voted FOR this proposal - Amount 1m ARB.
I believe both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund are doing important work for the crypto ecosystem. Even if initially focused on the US, the consequence of their work cascades to all jurisdictions and all web3 projects.
Given that the teams estimate a need of $500k for their current process, 1m ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
gm all, voted FOR this proposal - Amount 1m ARB.
I believe both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund are doing important work for the crypto ecosystem. Even if initially focused on the US, the consequence of their work cascades to all jurisdictions and all web3 projects.
Given that the teams estimate a need of $500k for their current process, 1m ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
Best of luck, and will be looking forward to some report on the results.
Voted FOR 500,000 each Hopefully the funds will be spent wisely. Good luck :crossed_fingers:
Hi Rika,
This was a point that was discussed on the call w/CC & DEF. Right now, both institutions are undergoing or will potentially have to undergo, litigation proceedings in relation to certain crypto-specific matters in the US. The legal costs for such an endeavor costs upwards of 500,000USD most of the time (based on the discussions w/CC and DEF, this sometimes is actually a minimum for litigation lawyers in the US where the case would potentially also need to go through circuits and, potentially, the Supreme Court where necessary).
Hi Rika,
This was a point that was discussed on the call w/CC & DEF. Right now, both institutions are undergoing or will potentially have to undergo, litigation proceedings in relation to certain crypto-specific matters in the US. The legal costs for such an endeavor costs upwards of 500,000USD most of the time (based on the discussions w/CC and DEF, this sometimes is actually a minimum for litigation lawyers in the US where the case would potentially also need to go through circuits and, potentially, the Supreme Court where necessary).
This is why were I to be a delegate, I'd be voting for the 1Million+ARB range here to give them some much needed cushion re. these costs.
Several have also asked 'Why are we funding US Institutions'. The answer from my end at this point in time (and this is coming from a European's perspective), is that what happens in the US influences regulators worldwide but especially the EU (for example). Hence, in light of the several pivotal (emphasis here) issues that are being discussed in the US, we feel that funding these two high-quality and effective institutions will have a positive trickle-down effect on the digital asset industry globally.
cp0x fully support this proposal, because in code we trust and
Voted: FOR, Fund with 1,500,000 ARB each
Thank you @Immutablelawyer for crafting this proposal, despite Axis opting out of any remuneration.
In an effort to help delegates with their decision making, I'm wondering what framework/model could be used to choose the funding amount. I don't feel like I have a baseline to measure cost against, and I suspect that other delegates may feel the same. The difference between 500k and 1.5M ARB is big, so maybe you could provide some more context around how you chose the funding options as well as any useful framing to help delegates measure the cost vs. the impact.
Thanks Matthew i've now voted for the proposal!
I hope that CoinCenter or DEF is able to directly support you with this grant in some way. Even if not, this is a long battle in the trenches and I'm glad we made some progress here!
Thanks for the additional context! I have now changed my vote to supporting DEF and CoinCenter with 500k ARB each, but will monitor to see if the amount should be modified before the vote ends.
Given the limitations we face as a large DAO with lots of eyes on us, we have to be strategic in how we support important causes. Headlines such as "ArbitrumDAO funds tornado cash developers" will paint a target on our back, potentially create powerful enemies and result in us overextending ourselves too much in one direction.
The Arbitrum Foundation advised us that they wouldn't have been able to facilitate the transaction to the aforementioned parties. Hence, instead of stopping our efforts we felt that this was a good middle ground to still contribute.
Also, if you listen to the call we had w/DEF and Coin Center, you'll realise that we actually haven't left Alexey and Roman high and dry; as DEF + CC still aid in their litigation efforts.
After some reflection, I have voted against this proposal. Mainly because @matthewb comment doesn't make me feel good (which is ironic considering charitable contributions are supposed to do this) and i see his concerns completely unaddressed in the discussion prior to moving to snapshot vote.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey’s legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties
Hey everyone,
Most of the queries above can be addressed by listening to the call we hosted yesterday w/DEF & Coin Center. Recording found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ndSZNrGQ5_gx2LBGM5IhvLCIzfT1qXc7/view
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain team has similar questions as @ruslanklinkov. We fully support Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund and their work in policy and advocacy, but would like to see more detail in this proposal regarding specific outcomes and cost uses and justifications. How will the funds be used by the organizations? Have other DAOs contributed/donated to these organizations before? We would like a little more background before casting our vote.
While some of the critics provided in this proposal by some delegates can make sense, the vote in my opinion has to be a decisive "for", with the highest amount, 1.5M arb.
It's not only about arbitrum, or our dao, or crypto, is about something more to stand for, principles that we give constantly for granted, and we are able to do so because usually there is someone else fighting daily battles for it.
While some of the critics provided in this proposal by some delegates can make sense, the vote in my opinion has to be a decisive "for", with the highest amount, 1.5M arb.
It's not only about arbitrum, or our dao, or crypto, is about something more to stand for, principles that we give constantly for granted, and we are able to do so because usually there is someone else fighting daily battles for it.
And also, good karma to @Immutablelawyer and his crew for putting this up without asking for a dime.
Thank you, @Immutablelawyer, for initiating this proposal.The concept is very appealing. However, it would be helpful to understand more about what each funding option will provide and how we can ensure the funds are utilized efficiently.
Hey guys! Have a nice day! Thank you for taking the time to share your position regarding the funding of Coin Center to support their policy, litigation, and advocacy efforts for open-source software developers' rights. It is grounded in the challenges faced by the digital asset industry and historical precedents like the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) case. However, I've identified several areas in your proposal that I believe could be improved. Perhaps you could clarify:
Uncertainty in Overall Costs: The proposal offers various funding levels without a clear rationale for choosing among them. A more detailed analysis of the potential impact of each funding level would help voters make a more informed choice.
Risks and Monitoring: The discussion on potential risks associated with funding and plans for monitoring fund usage is missing. Including mechanisms for reporting and controlling fund expenditure would enhance trust in the proposal.
Specific Outcomes: The proposal could benefit from a more detailed description of expected outcomes from funding Coin Center. Clearly stating goals and success metrics would help the community understand the direction of their investments.
Alternative Actions: The proposal could consider other means of supporting developers' rights and privacy beyond funding Coin Center, such as supporting other organizations or initiatives within the Arbitrum community.
Also off topic here.
Not really, just want to know if people writing comments here might get rugged like last time
This site is literally called forum.arbitrum.foundation. Is hosted on the foundation website. Whatever is posted in here can be a liability for the foundation so they can cancel all contents if they feel like, is totally in their right. Also off topic here.
@AbdullahUmar - We won't as, to be quite frank, this proposal (discussions, liasing w/stakeholders, delegates, contributors, CC & DEF, outside counsel of our own etc.), took up quite a bit of billable hours on my team's end that I naturally cannot afford to do on a continuous basis. The total cost on our end to get this proposal to Snapshot was 10k+ (in consideration of the factor aforementioned - but this is primarily billable hours + outside US Counsel which is naturally not free of charge - we are not US Lawyers, but have US Partners we utilise when we have US Inquiries).
Hence, unfortunately, our firm will not be serving as a liaison between the parties. However, I am sure that CC & DEF will not have any issues w/establishing a channel of communication w/the ArbitrumDAO - such as a monthly update call for example or some other form.
@AbdullahUmar - We won't as, to be quite frank, this proposal (discussions, liasing w/stakeholders, delegates, contributors, CC & DEF, outside counsel of our own etc.), took up quite a bit of billable hours on my team's end that I naturally cannot afford to do on a continuous basis. The total cost on our end to get this proposal to Snapshot was 10k+ (in consideration of the factor aforementioned - but this is primarily billable hours + outside US Counsel which is naturally not free of charge - we are not US Lawyers, but have US Partners we utilise when we have US Inquiries).
Hence, unfortunately, our firm will not be serving as a liaison between the parties. However, I am sure that CC & DEF will not have any issues w/establishing a channel of communication w/the ArbitrumDAO - such as a monthly update call for example or some other form.
I hope that clarifies our position :handshake:
To add; we did not (and won't) request a reimbursement or a payment for this - we deem the above as an indirect contribution from our end to this cause.
Given that the teams estimate a need of $500k for their current process, 1m ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
Appreciate the logic provided behind selecting 1 m ARB to each organization. I've followed your recommendation & gone with this amount too :pray:
Here are some comments from the UADP:
The legal terrain is a tough one to navigate, and it’s seldom top of mind for builders in the space until the community faces some sort of calamity. It’s therefore vital to fund groups that have the connections and competency to effectively court the ears of politicians and regulatory bodies. Both organizations have a strong history in shaping the landscape of digital asset regulation and defending the rights and freedoms within the blockchain community. Since we are by no means legal experts, we have resorted to the comments of folks more acclimated with this subject matter to decide our vote. Lobbying and litigation initiatives are quite expensive, so it doesn’t seem prudent to simply give the entities $500k each. It seems wiser to deploy $1M - $3M per organization so they can more effectively implement their plans. If we’re going to fund this, might as well make it worthwhile. An aspect that we hope will better be addressed in the future, however, is clearly reporting back to the DAO the successes and failures of the programs taken by Coin Center and DEF. Other DAOs have previously funded such groups, but they never returned to the DAO with KPIs and success metrics. We are curious if @Immutablelawyer/Axis will be actively involved as a liaison between CC/DEF and the DAO from a communications perspective.
We would like to thank @Immutablelawyer for coming up with this proposal and facilitating the communication between involved parties. After following the discussion here, we will support the proposal to fund the DeFi Education Fund and Coin Center as we believed that they are doing the improtant work for our industry.Our support is rooted in the commitment to protect open-source software development and uphold developers' rights. By supporting these organizations we could help improve legal clarity and defend privacy free speech within the web3 space. .
Based on the context on cost of $500k for their current process, 1M ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
gm all, voted FOR this proposal - Amount 1m ARB.
I believe both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund are doing important work for the crypto ecosystem. Even if initially focused on the US, the consequence of their work cascades to all jurisdictions and all web3 projects.
Given that the teams estimate a need of $500k for their current process, 1m ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
gm all, voted FOR this proposal - Amount 1m ARB.
I believe both Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund are doing important work for the crypto ecosystem. Even if initially focused on the US, the consequence of their work cascades to all jurisdictions and all web3 projects.
Given that the teams estimate a need of $500k for their current process, 1m ARB should give them enough cushion to succeed.
Best of luck, and will be looking forward to some report on the results.
Voted FOR 500,000 each Hopefully the funds will be spent wisely. Good luck :crossed_fingers:
Hi Rika,
This was a point that was discussed on the call w/CC & DEF. Right now, both institutions are undergoing or will potentially have to undergo, litigation proceedings in relation to certain crypto-specific matters in the US. The legal costs for such an endeavor costs upwards of 500,000USD most of the time (based on the discussions w/CC and DEF, this sometimes is actually a minimum for litigation lawyers in the US where the case would potentially also need to go through circuits and, potentially, the Supreme Court where necessary).
Hi Rika,
This was a point that was discussed on the call w/CC & DEF. Right now, both institutions are undergoing or will potentially have to undergo, litigation proceedings in relation to certain crypto-specific matters in the US. The legal costs for such an endeavor costs upwards of 500,000USD most of the time (based on the discussions w/CC and DEF, this sometimes is actually a minimum for litigation lawyers in the US where the case would potentially also need to go through circuits and, potentially, the Supreme Court where necessary).
This is why were I to be a delegate, I'd be voting for the 1Million+ARB range here to give them some much needed cushion re. these costs.
Several have also asked 'Why are we funding US Institutions'. The answer from my end at this point in time (and this is coming from a European's perspective), is that what happens in the US influences regulators worldwide but especially the EU (for example). Hence, in light of the several pivotal (emphasis here) issues that are being discussed in the US, we feel that funding these two high-quality and effective institutions will have a positive trickle-down effect on the digital asset industry globally.
cp0x fully support this proposal, because in code we trust and
Voted: FOR, Fund with 1,500,000 ARB each
Thank you @Immutablelawyer for crafting this proposal, despite Axis opting out of any remuneration.
In an effort to help delegates with their decision making, I'm wondering what framework/model could be used to choose the funding amount. I don't feel like I have a baseline to measure cost against, and I suspect that other delegates may feel the same. The difference between 500k and 1.5M ARB is big, so maybe you could provide some more context around how you chose the funding options as well as any useful framing to help delegates measure the cost vs. the impact.
Thanks Matthew i've now voted for the proposal!
I hope that CoinCenter or DEF is able to directly support you with this grant in some way. Even if not, this is a long battle in the trenches and I'm glad we made some progress here!
Thanks for the additional context! I have now changed my vote to supporting DEF and CoinCenter with 500k ARB each, but will monitor to see if the amount should be modified before the vote ends.
Given the limitations we face as a large DAO with lots of eyes on us, we have to be strategic in how we support important causes. Headlines such as "ArbitrumDAO funds tornado cash developers" will paint a target on our back, potentially create powerful enemies and result in us overextending ourselves too much in one direction.
The Arbitrum Foundation advised us that they wouldn't have been able to facilitate the transaction to the aforementioned parties. Hence, instead of stopping our efforts we felt that this was a good middle ground to still contribute.
Also, if you listen to the call we had w/DEF and Coin Center, you'll realise that we actually haven't left Alexey and Roman high and dry; as DEF + CC still aid in their litigation efforts.
After some reflection, I have voted against this proposal. Mainly because @matthewb comment doesn't make me feel good (which is ironic considering charitable contributions are supposed to do this) and i see his concerns completely unaddressed in the discussion prior to moving to snapshot vote.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey’s legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties
Hey everyone,
Most of the queries above can be addressed by listening to the call we hosted yesterday w/DEF & Coin Center. Recording found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ndSZNrGQ5_gx2LBGM5IhvLCIzfT1qXc7/view
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain team has similar questions as @ruslanklinkov. We fully support Coin Center and DeFi Education Fund and their work in policy and advocacy, but would like to see more detail in this proposal regarding specific outcomes and cost uses and justifications. How will the funds be used by the organizations? Have other DAOs contributed/donated to these organizations before? We would like a little more background before casting our vote.
While some of the critics provided in this proposal by some delegates can make sense, the vote in my opinion has to be a decisive "for", with the highest amount, 1.5M arb.
It's not only about arbitrum, or our dao, or crypto, is about something more to stand for, principles that we give constantly for granted, and we are able to do so because usually there is someone else fighting daily battles for it.
While some of the critics provided in this proposal by some delegates can make sense, the vote in my opinion has to be a decisive "for", with the highest amount, 1.5M arb.
It's not only about arbitrum, or our dao, or crypto, is about something more to stand for, principles that we give constantly for granted, and we are able to do so because usually there is someone else fighting daily battles for it.
And also, good karma to @Immutablelawyer and his crew for putting this up without asking for a dime.
Thank you, @Immutablelawyer, for initiating this proposal.The concept is very appealing. However, it would be helpful to understand more about what each funding option will provide and how we can ensure the funds are utilized efficiently.
Hey guys! Have a nice day! Thank you for taking the time to share your position regarding the funding of Coin Center to support their policy, litigation, and advocacy efforts for open-source software developers' rights. It is grounded in the challenges faced by the digital asset industry and historical precedents like the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) case. However, I've identified several areas in your proposal that I believe could be improved. Perhaps you could clarify:
Uncertainty in Overall Costs: The proposal offers various funding levels without a clear rationale for choosing among them. A more detailed analysis of the potential impact of each funding level would help voters make a more informed choice.
Risks and Monitoring: The discussion on potential risks associated with funding and plans for monitoring fund usage is missing. Including mechanisms for reporting and controlling fund expenditure would enhance trust in the proposal.
Specific Outcomes: The proposal could benefit from a more detailed description of expected outcomes from funding Coin Center. Clearly stating goals and success metrics would help the community understand the direction of their investments.
Alternative Actions: The proposal could consider other means of supporting developers' rights and privacy beyond funding Coin Center, such as supporting other organizations or initiatives within the Arbitrum community.
Also off topic here.
Not really, just want to know if people writing comments here might get rugged like last time
This site is literally called forum.arbitrum.foundation. Is hosted on the foundation website. Whatever is posted in here can be a liability for the foundation so they can cancel all contents if they feel like, is totally in their right. Also off topic here.
Thanks for the additional context! I have now changed my vote to supporting DEF and CoinCenter with 500k ARB each, but will monitor to see if the amount should be modified before the vote ends.
Given the limitations we face as a large DAO with lots of eyes on us, we have to be strategic in how we support important causes. Headlines such as "ArbitrumDAO funds tornado cash developers" will paint a target on our back, potentially create powerful enemies and result in us overextending ourselves too much in one direction.
I like that this proposal supports open source, routes the money to well established organizations and comes at a critical time for our industry.
Apologies to @matthewb on this direction that we've had to take! We would have gladly supported directly if that option had less resistance, we'll have to make peace with not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
After some reflection, I have voted against this proposal. Mainly because @matthewb comment doesn't make me feel good (which is ironic considering charitable contributions are supposed to do this) and i see his concerns completely unaddressed in the discussion prior to moving to snapshot vote.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey’s legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties
Overall i don't like the thought that we have left the tornado cash devs high and dry out of some supposed legal or reputational risk, and we are making these contributions as a salve on our conscience
Hey guys! Have a nice day! Thank you for taking the time to share your position regarding the funding of Coin Center to support their policy, litigation, and advocacy efforts for open-source software developers' rights. It is grounded in the challenges faced by the digital asset industry and historical precedents like the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) case. However, I've identified several areas in your proposal that I believe could be improved. Perhaps you could clarify:
Uncertainty in Overall Costs: The proposal offers various funding levels without a clear rationale for choosing among them. A more detailed analysis of the potential impact of each funding level would help voters make a more informed choice.
Risks and Monitoring: The discussion on potential risks associated with funding and plans for monitoring fund usage is missing. Including mechanisms for reporting and controlling fund expenditure would enhance trust in the proposal.
Specific Outcomes: The proposal could benefit from a more detailed description of expected outcomes from funding Coin Center. Clearly stating goals and success metrics would help the community understand the direction of their investments.
Alternative Actions: The proposal could consider other means of supporting developers' rights and privacy beyond funding Coin Center, such as supporting other organizations or initiatives within the Arbitrum community.
Improving these aspects could make the proposal stronger and more appealing for DAO voting.
Not really, just want to know if people writing comments here might get rugged like last time
we will respect the needs of the author including if they want a post deleted
Thanks appreciate the clarification on rights of deletion in the forum!
EDIT to add: I can see the case for an author only being able to delete their original post and not the comments of people in that thread, but that's a discussion for another time.
After thinking about it a little more, I'd prefer a setup where any organization that filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Tornado Cash devs is eligible to apply for funding. That would cover Blockchain Association, DEF and Coin Center (Coinbase too but I doubt they would apply).
We then can simply propose to divide the 2.25 million equally among eligible applicants, rather than picking one over another and potentially getting competing proposals or having to create a framework. It would also make clear the connection between this proposal and the earlier one on Snapshot, which is somewhat lost here.
After thinking about it a little more, I'd prefer a setup where any organization that filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Tornado Cash devs is eligible to apply for funding. That would cover Blockchain Association, DEF and Coin Center (Coinbase too but I doubt they would apply).
We then can simply propose to divide the 2.25 million equally among eligible applicants, rather than picking one over another and potentially getting competing proposals or having to create a framework. It would also make clear the connection between this proposal and the earlier one on Snapshot, which is somewhat lost here.
regarding the thread history, we could spinup a service that monitors posts and pins them on ipfs
This is certainly one solution to ensure we have a record available.
My question is more basic though, which is figuring out who has the right to censor or delete forum posts. That is currently unclear - is it Patrick and the foundation, the thread originator or someone else?
questbook season 2 idea incoming
regarding the thread history, we could spinup a service that monitors posts and pins them on ipfs. Could even integrate it directly to discourse, I bet we could get someone to build it as a public good for like 10-15k tbh. I do think its a good idea in the nature of being a pro web3 move for us to create.
We're open to that, but also plan to run the poll for DEF concurrently if not. So there shouldn't be a worry about first-come-first-serve. Approval of one proposal does not block the other in any way.
If possible would be great if you can modify your original post to make the options presented at the end into a poll, so we get a rough sense of what people would vote for.
I appreciate the quick turnaround time in getting this out after the last proposal. I do understand @cp0x concerns around not helping the devs legal defense directly, but I would point out that Coin Center has recently filed an Amicus Curiae brief that is certainly helpful to their case.
If possible would be great if you can modify your original post to make the options presented at the end into a poll, so we get a rough sense of what people would vote for.
I appreciate the quick turnaround time in getting this out after the last proposal. I do understand @cp0x concerns around not helping the devs legal defense directly, but I would point out that Coin Center has recently filed an Amicus Curiae brief that is certainly helpful to their case.
I would like some consensus built around deleting forum threads, as we no longer have the discussion from the old proposal to draw upon. is there a possibility that this post and the entire thread may also get deleted one day? Is the rights for deletion of posts with the originator of the thread, subject to @stonecoldpat moderation or do we have some say in it?
EDIT to add - I would like some joint proposal between @GFXlabs recommending DEF for funding. I don't want it to just be first come first serve , or that we give to one over another based on the proposer reputation.
The Coin Center donation initiative is great, but it doesn’t look like Tornado Cash developers’ defense fund factors anywhere here - which was the focus of the original (now deleted) proposal. The axis advisory’s write up describes TC developers’ legal battle, but this proposal doesn’t explicitly address any donation to the devs’ legal defense.
Is a donation expected from Coin Center to Roman and Alex’s legal defense, or a separate proposal specifically for that purpose? @Immutablelawyer
Thank you for coming back to the DAO with a more thoughtful proposal @Immutablelawyer
this is the natural evolution of the old, gut born, proposal to fund tornado cash lawyers for their defense.
At the time the initial was killed cause not all the ramifications and risks for the dao were considered. Glad that the "we are going to come back to this with a more thoughtful approach" has been indeed respected. Props to Joseph here, crafting these proposals is always a big pain. Supporting this for the max amount, 2.5m, this battle goes beyond arbitrum, and also beyond crypto.
Questions:
Don’t Fund option included.
No, albeit allocating substantial time to this endeavor (in comparison to what the proposal is) Axis will not be taking any remuneration.
Thanks, Joseph
Thanks for the additional context! I have now changed my vote to supporting DEF and CoinCenter with 500k ARB each, but will monitor to see if the amount should be modified before the vote ends.
Given the limitations we face as a large DAO with lots of eyes on us, we have to be strategic in how we support important causes. Headlines such as "ArbitrumDAO funds tornado cash developers" will paint a target on our back, potentially create powerful enemies and result in us overextending ourselves too much in one direction.
I like that this proposal supports open source, routes the money to well established organizations and comes at a critical time for our industry.
Apologies to @matthewb on this direction that we've had to take! We would have gladly supported directly if that option had less resistance, we'll have to make peace with not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
After some reflection, I have voted against this proposal. Mainly because @matthewb comment doesn't make me feel good (which is ironic considering charitable contributions are supposed to do this) and i see his concerns completely unaddressed in the discussion prior to moving to snapshot vote.
That said, it is disappointing to see this revised proposal no longer directly supporting Roman and Alexey’s legal defense. Their cases are indisputably the most important happening right now and if they are unsuccessful, legal precedent will be established such that every developer and protocol in the Arbitrum ecosystem could face prosecution for the actions of third parties
Overall i don't like the thought that we have left the tornado cash devs high and dry out of some supposed legal or reputational risk, and we are making these contributions as a salve on our conscience
Hey guys! Have a nice day! Thank you for taking the time to share your position regarding the funding of Coin Center to support their policy, litigation, and advocacy efforts for open-source software developers' rights. It is grounded in the challenges faced by the digital asset industry and historical precedents like the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) case. However, I've identified several areas in your proposal that I believe could be improved. Perhaps you could clarify:
Uncertainty in Overall Costs: The proposal offers various funding levels without a clear rationale for choosing among them. A more detailed analysis of the potential impact of each funding level would help voters make a more informed choice.
Risks and Monitoring: The discussion on potential risks associated with funding and plans for monitoring fund usage is missing. Including mechanisms for reporting and controlling fund expenditure would enhance trust in the proposal.
Specific Outcomes: The proposal could benefit from a more detailed description of expected outcomes from funding Coin Center. Clearly stating goals and success metrics would help the community understand the direction of their investments.
Alternative Actions: The proposal could consider other means of supporting developers' rights and privacy beyond funding Coin Center, such as supporting other organizations or initiatives within the Arbitrum community.
Improving these aspects could make the proposal stronger and more appealing for DAO voting.
Not really, just want to know if people writing comments here might get rugged like last time
we will respect the needs of the author including if they want a post deleted
Thanks appreciate the clarification on rights of deletion in the forum!
EDIT to add: I can see the case for an author only being able to delete their original post and not the comments of people in that thread, but that's a discussion for another time.
After thinking about it a little more, I'd prefer a setup where any organization that filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Tornado Cash devs is eligible to apply for funding. That would cover Blockchain Association, DEF and Coin Center (Coinbase too but I doubt they would apply).
We then can simply propose to divide the 2.25 million equally among eligible applicants, rather than picking one over another and potentially getting competing proposals or having to create a framework. It would also make clear the connection between this proposal and the earlier one on Snapshot, which is somewhat lost here.
After thinking about it a little more, I'd prefer a setup where any organization that filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Tornado Cash devs is eligible to apply for funding. That would cover Blockchain Association, DEF and Coin Center (Coinbase too but I doubt they would apply).
We then can simply propose to divide the 2.25 million equally among eligible applicants, rather than picking one over another and potentially getting competing proposals or having to create a framework. It would also make clear the connection between this proposal and the earlier one on Snapshot, which is somewhat lost here.
regarding the thread history, we could spinup a service that monitors posts and pins them on ipfs
This is certainly one solution to ensure we have a record available.
My question is more basic though, which is figuring out who has the right to censor or delete forum posts. That is currently unclear - is it Patrick and the foundation, the thread originator or someone else?
questbook season 2 idea incoming
regarding the thread history, we could spinup a service that monitors posts and pins them on ipfs. Could even integrate it directly to discourse, I bet we could get someone to build it as a public good for like 10-15k tbh. I do think its a good idea in the nature of being a pro web3 move for us to create.
We're open to that, but also plan to run the poll for DEF concurrently if not. So there shouldn't be a worry about first-come-first-serve. Approval of one proposal does not block the other in any way.
If possible would be great if you can modify your original post to make the options presented at the end into a poll, so we get a rough sense of what people would vote for.
I appreciate the quick turnaround time in getting this out after the last proposal. I do understand @cp0x concerns around not helping the devs legal defense directly, but I would point out that Coin Center has recently filed an Amicus Curiae brief that is certainly helpful to their case.
If possible would be great if you can modify your original post to make the options presented at the end into a poll, so we get a rough sense of what people would vote for.
I appreciate the quick turnaround time in getting this out after the last proposal. I do understand @cp0x concerns around not helping the devs legal defense directly, but I would point out that Coin Center has recently filed an Amicus Curiae brief that is certainly helpful to their case.
I would like some consensus built around deleting forum threads, as we no longer have the discussion from the old proposal to draw upon. is there a possibility that this post and the entire thread may also get deleted one day? Is the rights for deletion of posts with the originator of the thread, subject to @stonecoldpat moderation or do we have some say in it?
EDIT to add - I would like some joint proposal between @GFXlabs recommending DEF for funding. I don't want it to just be first come first serve , or that we give to one over another based on the proposer reputation.
The Coin Center donation initiative is great, but it doesn’t look like Tornado Cash developers’ defense fund factors anywhere here - which was the focus of the original (now deleted) proposal. The axis advisory’s write up describes TC developers’ legal battle, but this proposal doesn’t explicitly address any donation to the devs’ legal defense.
Is a donation expected from Coin Center to Roman and Alex’s legal defense, or a separate proposal specifically for that purpose? @Immutablelawyer
Thank you for coming back to the DAO with a more thoughtful proposal @Immutablelawyer
this is the natural evolution of the old, gut born, proposal to fund tornado cash lawyers for their defense.
At the time the initial was killed cause not all the ramifications and risks for the dao were considered. Glad that the "we are going to come back to this with a more thoughtful approach" has been indeed respected. Props to Joseph here, crafting these proposals is always a big pain. Supporting this for the max amount, 2.5m, this battle goes beyond arbitrum, and also beyond crypto.
Questions:
Don’t Fund option included.
No, albeit allocating substantial time to this endeavor (in comparison to what the proposal is) Axis will not be taking any remuneration.
Thanks, Joseph
