This proposal aims to introduce guidelines for posting proposals to a vote; primarily to reduce delegate fatigue by ensuring that Snapshot and Tally votes are posted at a regular cadence with greater predictability. Rather than formally updating the language of the Arbitrum DAO Constitution, the chosen guidelines can be seen as a common social agreement between delegates. This proposal carries no cost to the DAO, and the guidelines can be implemented by the start of August if passed through a Snapshot vote.
Since its inception, the Arbitrum DAO has voted on over 280 Snapshots and 30 onchain votes. First anticipated almost a year ago by Cattin and Seedlatam, as the operations of the DAO continue to grow, a more efficient and predictable governance process is needed to prevent delegate fatigue.
Our team considered several possibilities for structuring Arbitrum DAO’s governance processes. This included creating voting periods organized around a monthly calendar or continuously repeating three week cycles. While both of those structures would greatly increase predictability and allow for the possibility of predetermined rest periods, they each come with tradeoffs:
Previous conversations on the DAO’s process have also included introducing standard guidelines for elections or an Arbitrum Delegate Code of Conduct. These are topics that Entropy Advisors is beginning to work on as well, but in this case we believe it is better to start by leaning on the side of simplicity.
Knowing that more complex structures can always be implemented later, below we propose the adoption of a set day each week for votes to start as well as a holiday break. Both of these would greatly increase predictability for delegates and can be adopted by the DAO without much of an adjustment period.
This proposal does not seek to alter the language of the Arbitrum DAO Constitution, but rather create an agreed upon social contract between delegates on best practices in regards to posting proposals to a Snapshot or Tally vote.
Our primary objective is to improve predictability and reduce the potential for delegate fatigue. Based on these priorities below are specifications for the two recommended adjustments to Arbitrum DAO’s governance processes.
By starting both Snapshot and Tally votes on Thursday, the DAO can not only increase predictability for delegates, but also prevent the scenario where votes begin/end on weekends.
In order for a Tally vote to start on Thursday, it must be posted on Monday given the 3-day delay from when a proposal is posted until voting begins. Each batch of proposals ready to move to a Snapshot vote can be scheduled beforehand beginning on Monday and through Wednesday. We encourage delegates to post/schedule votes to begin before Thursday at 12 pm UTC. While not a hard deadline, this will help ensure any votes start for a majority of delegates worldwide.
Overall, this allows delegates who don’t follow discussions as closely a few days to see what will be voted on and properly prepare. Additionally, with multiple opportunities each month to move a proposal forward to a vote, the incentive to rush the process is reduced.
Implement a holiday break to ensure delegates have a break and can return refreshed for the new year. During this time it is advised that no new proposals are posted to the forums and only emergency proposals are put up to a vote.
Recently, we have noticed a trend within Arbitrum DAO of delegates waiting until a proposal makes it to a Snapshot for feedback to be given. This has resulted in some proposals being posted to Snapshot prematurely. We assume this is a result of several factors including the increasing amount of topics delegates must stay up to date on and the fact that there are no specific guidelines on how much discussion is required before moving a proposal forward.
It would likely be very difficult to achieve DAO wide consensus on what specific requirements should be implemented to determine when a proposal is ready to move to a Snapshot vote. Thus a level of subjectivity is required and taking inspiration from procedures within Optimism DAO, a delegate approval process can be adopted.
There are currently 64 delegates with greater than 500k in voting power (VP), so our recommended threshold for delegate approval is 4 delegates. Once a proposal obtains this threshold it can be considered that there is consensus among enough delegates that it is ready to move forward.
To signal their support of a proposal, delegates can post a statement similar to the following: “I am an Arbitrum delegate with xx voting power and believe this proposal is ready to move forward to Snapshot”. Delegates should also link their Tally profile so that it is easy to verify their VP.
This approach introduces its own set of tradeoffs. While it would likely prevent premature proposals from going to a Snapshot vote, it does increase delegate responsibilities and can risk proposals authored by new contributors getting stuck due to the lack of connections to large delegates. Therefore we are presenting this as an option separate from the aforementioned adoptions and would welcome feedback from the community.
To help encourage delegates to take on this additional responsibility, as part of the delegate incentive program a bonus point can be awarded to delegates on Karma who approve a proposal that eventually passes on Snapshot or Tally. This is just a suggestion and something we will leave to the discretion of the Seed Latam team.
In the event of an emergency proposal that is time-sensitive in nature we recommend that any adopted guidelines be waived and the proposal be put up to a vote immediately. In our opinion, only Constitutional AIPs that relate to security matters should be considered as emergency proposals.
Any changes made to the DAO’s procedures need to be widely communicated and accessible for potential new members. Otherwise, there are minimal steps needed to implement other than coordinating delegates and helping the DAO adjust to the adopted changes.
Entropy will also be responsible for:
Below is a proposed timeline to help ensure a smooth transition and adequate preparation for all delegates and community members.
Taking into account GovHack (July 5-7) and EthCC (8-11), we have proposed a longer feedback period so as to not hold a vote when several delegates will be traveling. These events also present an opportunity to gather additional feedback in person.
Assuming the proposal passes the Snapshot vote, preparation for the first batch of proposals to align with the new schedule. We recommend that no Snapshot votes are posted after July 21st to help ensure a smooth transition for the first batch to begin August 1st.
There are no additional costs to the DAO for implementing this proposal. The primary resources required will be the time required to update and coordinate with delegates on whatever new schedule is decided upon. This will be handled by the Entropy Advisors team.
We wanted to also extend our gratitude to Cattin and the Seed Latam team for providing valuable feedback and assistance with this proposal.
This proposal aims to introduce guidelines for posting proposals to a vote; primarily to reduce delegate fatigue by ensuring that Snapshot and Tally votes are posted at a regular cadence with greater predictability. Rather than formally updating the language of the Arbitrum DAO Constitution, the chosen guidelines can be seen as a common social agreement between delegates. This proposal carries no cost to the DAO, and the guidelines can be implemented by the start of August if passed through a Snapshot vote.
Since its inception, the Arbitrum DAO has voted on over 280 Snapshots and 30 onchain votes. First anticipated almost a year ago by Cattin and Seedlatam, as the operations of the DAO continue to grow, a more efficient and predictable governance process is needed to prevent delegate fatigue.
Our team considered several possibilities for structuring Arbitrum DAO’s governance processes. This included creating voting periods organized around a monthly calendar or continuously repeating three week cycles. While both of those structures would greatly increase predictability and allow for the possibility of predetermined rest periods, they each come with tradeoffs:
Previous conversations on the DAO’s process have also included introducing standard guidelines for elections or an Arbitrum Delegate Code of Conduct. These are topics that Entropy Advisors is beginning to work on as well, but in this case we believe it is better to start by leaning on the side of simplicity.
Knowing that more complex structures can always be implemented later, below we propose the adoption of a set day each week for votes to start as well as a holiday break. Both of these would greatly increase predictability for delegates and can be adopted by the DAO without much of an adjustment period.
This proposal does not seek to alter the language of the Arbitrum DAO Constitution, but rather create an agreed upon social contract between delegates on best practices in regards to posting proposals to a Snapshot or Tally vote.
Our primary objective is to improve predictability and reduce the potential for delegate fatigue. Based on these priorities below are specifications for the two recommended adjustments to Arbitrum DAO’s governance processes.
By starting both Snapshot and Tally votes on Thursday, the DAO can not only increase predictability for delegates, but also prevent the scenario where votes begin/end on weekends.
In order for a Tally vote to start on Thursday, it must be posted on Monday given the 3-day delay from when a proposal is posted until voting begins. Each batch of proposals ready to move to a Snapshot vote can be scheduled beforehand beginning on Monday and through Wednesday. We encourage delegates to post/schedule votes to begin before Thursday at 12 pm UTC. While not a hard deadline, this will help ensure any votes start for a majority of delegates worldwide.
Overall, this allows delegates who don’t follow discussions as closely a few days to see what will be voted on and properly prepare. Additionally, with multiple opportunities each month to move a proposal forward to a vote, the incentive to rush the process is reduced.
Implement a holiday break to ensure delegates have a break and can return refreshed for the new year. During this time it is advised that no new proposals are posted to the forums and only emergency proposals are put up to a vote.
Recently, we have noticed a trend within Arbitrum DAO of delegates waiting until a proposal makes it to a Snapshot for feedback to be given. This has resulted in some proposals being posted to Snapshot prematurely. We assume this is a result of several factors including the increasing amount of topics delegates must stay up to date on and the fact that there are no specific guidelines on how much discussion is required before moving a proposal forward.
It would likely be very difficult to achieve DAO wide consensus on what specific requirements should be implemented to determine when a proposal is ready to move to a Snapshot vote. Thus a level of subjectivity is required and taking inspiration from procedures within Optimism DAO, a delegate approval process can be adopted.
There are currently 64 delegates with greater than 500k in voting power (VP), so our recommended threshold for delegate approval is 4 delegates. Once a proposal obtains this threshold it can be considered that there is consensus among enough delegates that it is ready to move forward.
To signal their support of a proposal, delegates can post a statement similar to the following: “I am an Arbitrum delegate with xx voting power and believe this proposal is ready to move forward to Snapshot”. Delegates should also link their Tally profile so that it is easy to verify their VP.
This approach introduces its own set of tradeoffs. While it would likely prevent premature proposals from going to a Snapshot vote, it does increase delegate responsibilities and can risk proposals authored by new contributors getting stuck due to the lack of connections to large delegates. Therefore we are presenting this as an option separate from the aforementioned adoptions and would welcome feedback from the community.
To help encourage delegates to take on this additional responsibility, as part of the delegate incentive program a bonus point can be awarded to delegates on Karma who approve a proposal that eventually passes on Snapshot or Tally. This is just a suggestion and something we will leave to the discretion of the Seed Latam team.
In the event of an emergency proposal that is time-sensitive in nature we recommend that any adopted guidelines be waived and the proposal be put up to a vote immediately. In our opinion, only Constitutional AIPs that relate to security matters should be considered as emergency proposals.
Any changes made to the DAO’s procedures need to be widely communicated and accessible for potential new members. Otherwise, there are minimal steps needed to implement other than coordinating delegates and helping the DAO adjust to the adopted changes.
Entropy will also be responsible for:
Below is a proposed timeline to help ensure a smooth transition and adequate preparation for all delegates and community members.
Taking into account GovHack (July 5-7) and EthCC (8-11), we have proposed a longer feedback period so as to not hold a vote when several delegates will be traveling. These events also present an opportunity to gather additional feedback in person.
Assuming the proposal passes the Snapshot vote, preparation for the first batch of proposals to align with the new schedule. We recommend that no Snapshot votes are posted after July 21st to help ensure a smooth transition for the first batch to begin August 1st.
There are no additional costs to the DAO for implementing this proposal. The primary resources required will be the time required to update and coordinate with delegates on whatever new schedule is decided upon. This will be handled by the Entropy Advisors team.
We wanted to also extend our gratitude to Cattin and the Seed Latam team for providing valuable feedback and assistance with this proposal.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/52
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/50
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/46?u=ocandocrypto
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/59?u=alexlumley
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/45?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/44?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/41?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/8?u=griff
I think the delegate approval process is already done onchain by number of delegations.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/6?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/38?u=0x_ultra
I fully support the proposal to improve predictability. Delegate voting should be made as convenient as possible.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/31?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/28?u=ezr3al
This is a practical and implementable process that can enhance quality effectiveness.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/18?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/17?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/52
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/50
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/46?u=ocandocrypto
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/59?u=alexlumley
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/45?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/44?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/41?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/8?u=griff
I think the delegate approval process is already done onchain by number of delegations.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/6?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/38?u=0x_ultra
I fully support the proposal to improve predictability. Delegate voting should be made as convenient as possible.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/31?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/28?u=ezr3al
This is a practical and implementable process that can enhance quality effectiveness.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/18?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/improving-predictability-in-arbitrum-dao-s-operations/25136/17?u=larva
Dspyt Team voted FOR the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO's operations, opting for the "No Approval Process" option. This decision reflects our belief in the importance of establishing a structured schedule for governance proposals and voting. Such regularity will enhance community engagement, reduce delegate fatigue, and bring greater consistency to the DAO.
While we understand the intention behind the delegate approval process to foster cooperation, we are concerned that it may lead to increased political maneuvering. We recommend revisiting this idea for highly technical proposals in the future.
Dspyt Team voted FOR the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO's operations, opting for the "No Approval Process" option. This decision reflects our belief in the importance of establishing a structured schedule for governance proposals and voting. Such regularity will enhance community engagement, reduce delegate fatigue, and bring greater consistency to the DAO.
While we understand the intention behind the delegate approval process to foster cooperation, we are concerned that it may lead to increased political maneuvering. We recommend revisiting this idea for highly technical proposals in the future.
Overall, we support measures that increase transparency and operational efficiency, aligning with our mission to promote informed and active community participation.
Voted FOR this proposal.
Dspyt Team voted FOR the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO's operations, opting for the "No Approval Process" option. This decision reflects our belief in the importance of establishing a structured schedule for governance proposals and voting. Such regularity will enhance community engagement, reduce delegate fatigue, and bring greater consistency to the DAO.
While we understand the intention behind the delegate approval process to foster cooperation, we are concerned that it may lead to increased political maneuvering. We recommend revisiting this idea for highly technical proposals in the future.
Dspyt Team voted FOR the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO's operations, opting for the "No Approval Process" option. This decision reflects our belief in the importance of establishing a structured schedule for governance proposals and voting. Such regularity will enhance community engagement, reduce delegate fatigue, and bring greater consistency to the DAO.
While we understand the intention behind the delegate approval process to foster cooperation, we are concerned that it may lead to increased political maneuvering. We recommend revisiting this idea for highly technical proposals in the future.
Overall, we support measures that increase transparency and operational efficiency, aligning with our mission to promote informed and active community participation.
Voted FOR this proposal.
I agree , with you , in this batch . You are correct. Start all votes (Snapshot and Tally) on Thursdays to improve predictability and reduce delegate fatigue. Introduce a holiday break from December 20 to January 6 to ensure delegates have a regular rest period and return refreshed. Strongly consider adopting the optional delegate approval process, as it can significantly improve the quality of proposals reaching the voting stage and prevent premature submissions. The guidelines for emergency proposals to maintain the integrity of the governance process while allowing for necessary flexibility in exceptional circumstances. This comprehensive communication plan to ensure all delegates and community members are well-informed about the new guidelines and processes. Updating the Ground Rules Topic and making the information easily accessible to new members. With establish a monitoring and feedback mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the implemented changes and gather insights from delegates. The resulting feedback loop ,continuously refine and improve the governance processes. Consensus can be reach around , the proposed timeline:
This will bring great value and reduce premature proposals coming on snapshot. There was 100 proposals at one time in snapshot which created fatigue and disinterest. Also there were voting for the sake of it. I hope this wont repeat again with this approach.
Why ranked choice vote?
Thanks for this proposal very useful and must need.
This is a great proposal and needed. Calendar works the best, but as pointed out decide on one country holiday list and lay down the proposals schedule, helping each one to ensure they participate actively.
For this proposal. This will bring structure and organized approach for participation. Thanks for your work.
I agree , with you , in this batch . You are correct. Start all votes (Snapshot and Tally) on Thursdays to improve predictability and reduce delegate fatigue. Introduce a holiday break from December 20 to January 6 to ensure delegates have a regular rest period and return refreshed. Strongly consider adopting the optional delegate approval process, as it can significantly improve the quality of proposals reaching the voting stage and prevent premature submissions. The guidelines for emergency proposals to maintain the integrity of the governance process while allowing for necessary flexibility in exceptional circumstances. This comprehensive communication plan to ensure all delegates and community members are well-informed about the new guidelines and processes. Updating the Ground Rules Topic and making the information easily accessible to new members. With establish a monitoring and feedback mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the implemented changes and gather insights from delegates. The resulting feedback loop ,continuously refine and improve the governance processes. Consensus can be reach around , the proposed timeline:
This will bring great value and reduce premature proposals coming on snapshot. There was 100 proposals at one time in snapshot which created fatigue and disinterest. Also there were voting for the sake of it. I hope this wont repeat again with this approach.
Why ranked choice vote?
Thanks for this proposal very useful and must need.
This is a great proposal and needed. Calendar works the best, but as pointed out decide on one country holiday list and lay down the proposals schedule, helping each one to ensure they participate actively.
For this proposal. This will bring structure and organized approach for participation. Thanks for your work.
Not sure who's intending to put the vote up but just a heads up that the date for the proposal app is August 1st here
Not sure who's intending to put the vote up but just a heads up that the date for the proposal app is August 1st here
I actually think that this process is a great idea - also lets delegates leave aside time to allocate and plan accordingly to participate in props. Makes sense to me.
I actually think that this process is a great idea - also lets delegates leave aside time to allocate and plan accordingly to participate in props. Makes sense to me.
Everyone loves excalidraw, right? :upside_down_face:
I don't have strong instance on weekly or bi-weekly. The main point here is to have a way to:
Everyone loves excalidraw, right? :upside_down_face:
I don't have strong instance on weekly or bi-weekly. The main point here is to have a way to:
The idea was to accommodate it to the current calendar, while giving the opportunity to centralize this actions (discussion/notification) in a single event.
Hello @Entropy!
I would like to propose an enhancement to the current setup. Despite all improvements in place, we still have delegates "caught in surprise" because a topic went to vote on Snapshot or Tally. And we have authors struggling to get feedback on their proposals, to understand if it ready for vote, if they make sense at all or not.
Background
Hello @Entropy!
I would like to propose an enhancement to the current setup. Despite all improvements in place, we still have delegates "caught in surprise" because a topic went to vote on Snapshot or Tally. And we have authors struggling to get feedback on their proposals, to understand if it ready for vote, if they make sense at all or not.
Background
Currently, we have these tools to help us to get a sense of when a proposal will go to vote:
The Awesome Weekly Reminders by @cliffton.eth, and Telegram messages with the same content. Someone could also check Snapshot itself and check if there is a proposal scheduled to vote.
We also have the Bi-Weekly Proposals discussion, happening on Tuesdays, every two weeks, where we discuss proposals that are live, and relevant topics.
However, we are still having some issues there. My proposal would be to do a slight adjust on what we have right now.
Motivation
Let's have an agreement (not sure if we need a vote for this) that all authors wanting to send their Snapshot proposal to vote on Thursday, need to participate on the Open Discussion Call. That will signal their intention to have the topic to vote in the next Thursday. The same is true for Tally, but they would need to participate in the call of the previous week, because of the on-chain delay (image explaining this better below) for Tally votes.
As the Tally proposals have a 3 days-delay before going live, they need to be submitted on Mondays to go live on Thursdays.
Benefits of this:
Specification
Changes that would need to be made:
Happy to have other ideas on this, but I think these small changes could improve our processes a lot - tagging other guys that I saw talking about this already @JoJo @DisruptionJoe @Immutablelawyer @AlexLumley @SEEDGov
@WinVerse The thought process when designing the holiday break for December 20th - January 6th, was that all votes would end on December 19th. We had envisioned the last batch of votes to begin the week prior on December 12th, so nothing new being posted on the 19th.
Thank you for bringing this up, as it should have been made more clear in the proposal. As we approach the end of the year we will make sure to coordinate with the Foundation and top delegates to get a few announcements posted.
DAOplomats voted in favor of Improving Predictability.
As we communicated earlier, we were supportive of the holiday break towards the end of the year and having all proposals start on Thursdays.
DAOplomats voted in favor of Improving Predictability.
As we communicated earlier, we were supportive of the holiday break towards the end of the year and having all proposals start on Thursdays.
@Entropy I am looking at the calendar and I am just seeing December 20, falls on a Friday. Thus, a ton of proposals could get in just a day before the start of the holidays resulting in a week’s holiday being missed. Is that something to be addressed or would there be no new proposals posted on the 19th?
does make sense. Remindes me some diagram about bribe voting, you know what I am talking about.
Jokes aside, my question is: are we already in a situation in which the biweekly call should become a weekly one? Because what you proposed make sense but has this nasty byproduct that we should try to push away as much as possible. Reason is simple, if we settle now on weekly call means that in 1y from now we are gonna be likely drowning in stuff to do. I don't think we are there yet, because while sometimes gov calls go over the counter, sometimes instead they finish a few minutes earlier. Intuitively, this makes me think the biweekly allocation is enough to manage the load of proposal, which makes me wonder if the proposals should go to snapshot instead on a biweekly cadence.
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 vote in favor of both the implementation of the calendar and the implementation of the approval process.
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 vote in favor of both the implementation of the calendar and the implementation of the approval process.
We believe that the approval process can get delegates more involved in proposals early on, and prevent proposers from working on something that does not have enough support. It takes a lot of work and effort to make a good proposal, and we should make sure that it is not wasted just because delegates are reluctant to give honest feedback until the final on-chain vote.
While the approval process does not guarantee the proposal's future success, it does ensure that at least some delegates have read it and supported it enough to give it a public thumbs up.
I voted in the following order on this proposal at the temp check stage:
Starting all votes on Thursdays and introducing a holiday break will make it easier for delegates to prepare adequately to vote on proposals.
Thank you for crafting this much-needed proposal. We agree that batching proposals will, “allow delegates who don’t follow discussions as closely a few days to see what will be voted on and properly prepare.”
With that said, we’d like to get some information on the workflow of batched proposals. Are you suggesting for Entropy to post all proposals to Snapshot and Tally or WILL proposers still BE required to find a sponsor to post? Also, will Entropy maintain a thread on the forum with all batched proposals to be posted? (so delegates can review and prepare to vote)
I couldn’t agree more with this proposal. I definitely voted FOR.
The challenge of staying up-to-date, thoroughly analyzing proposals and their comments to provide a context-based and fully transparent opinion is a tremendous task that sometimes overlaps with other responsibilities due to the urgent need to raise our voice.
We're voting FOR Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO's Operations.
This proposal addresses key operational challenges without major drawbacks. Setting Thursday as the standard voting day enhances predictability for delegates. The holiday break prevents burnout. These changes streamline governance processes and reduce delegate fatigue.
We're voting FOR Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO's Operations.
This proposal addresses key operational challenges without major drawbacks. Setting Thursday as the standard voting day enhances predictability for delegates. The holiday break prevents burnout. These changes streamline governance processes and reduce delegate fatigue.
The optional delegate approval process warrants further discussion. While it could improve proposal quality, it may create barriers for new contributors. We suggest implementing the core changes first, then reassessing the need for additional processes.
Overall, this proposal offers simple yet effective improvements to DAO operations. It merits support to enhance governance efficiency.
The Snapshot vote has concluded with Improving Predictability as the top choice. Therefore the DAO has elected to adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025.
The remaining timeline as outlined in the proposal is still on track:
The Snapshot vote has concluded with Improving Predictability as the top choice. Therefore the DAO has elected to adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025.
The remaining timeline as outlined in the proposal is still on track:
Assuming the proposal passes the Snapshot vote, preparation for the first batch of proposals to align with the new schedule. We recommend that no Snapshot votes are posted after July 21st to help ensure a smooth transition for the first batch to begin August 1st.
Next steps to be carried out by the Entropy team:
With there being notable interest from some delegates for a more detailed approval process, we are committed to helping the DAO reassess this option at a later date, potentially in the beginning of 2025 after the newly adopted holiday break. Our team will continue to ideate and take in feedback for how we can get more delegates involved earlier in the proposal discussion process.
Thank you to everyone for providing thoughtful comments and suggestions on this topic.
Voted in favour of this, improving predictability, but no approval process. Its quite hard to stay up to date with the DAO and its voting on the side so this will really help clean up the DAO.
We fully agree with the first part of this initiative to improve predictability for delegate participation. However, the delegate approval process in its current suggested form requires further discussion. Whether or not temperature checks should have additional hurdles for the sake of delegate fatigue is something we have yet to form opinion on fully.
We believe that we should have more temperature check votes in general, for new ideas that aren't that deeply planned and that more than likely fail, but also bring hard and fast attention to potentially critical or innovative issues (e.g. Camelot's incentive proposal). However, we also understand the concerns around low quality and low support votes. We look forward to a healthy discussion on this topic moving forward.
Everyone loves excalidraw, right? :upside_down_face:
I don't have strong instance on weekly or bi-weekly. The main point here is to have a way to:
Everyone loves excalidraw, right? :upside_down_face:
I don't have strong instance on weekly or bi-weekly. The main point here is to have a way to:
The idea was to accommodate it to the current calendar, while giving the opportunity to centralize this actions (discussion/notification) in a single event.
Hello @Entropy!
I would like to propose an enhancement to the current setup. Despite all improvements in place, we still have delegates "caught in surprise" because a topic went to vote on Snapshot or Tally. And we have authors struggling to get feedback on their proposals, to understand if it ready for vote, if they make sense at all or not.
Background
Hello @Entropy!
I would like to propose an enhancement to the current setup. Despite all improvements in place, we still have delegates "caught in surprise" because a topic went to vote on Snapshot or Tally. And we have authors struggling to get feedback on their proposals, to understand if it ready for vote, if they make sense at all or not.
Background
Currently, we have these tools to help us to get a sense of when a proposal will go to vote:
The Awesome Weekly Reminders by @cliffton.eth, and Telegram messages with the same content. Someone could also check Snapshot itself and check if there is a proposal scheduled to vote.
We also have the Bi-Weekly Proposals discussion, happening on Tuesdays, every two weeks, where we discuss proposals that are live, and relevant topics.
However, we are still having some issues there. My proposal would be to do a slight adjust on what we have right now.
Motivation
Let's have an agreement (not sure if we need a vote for this) that all authors wanting to send their Snapshot proposal to vote on Thursday, need to participate on the Open Discussion Call. That will signal their intention to have the topic to vote in the next Thursday. The same is true for Tally, but they would need to participate in the call of the previous week, because of the on-chain delay (image explaining this better below) for Tally votes.
As the Tally proposals have a 3 days-delay before going live, they need to be submitted on Mondays to go live on Thursdays.
Benefits of this:
Specification
Changes that would need to be made:
Happy to have other ideas on this, but I think these small changes could improve our processes a lot - tagging other guys that I saw talking about this already @JoJo @DisruptionJoe @Immutablelawyer @AlexLumley @SEEDGov
@WinVerse The thought process when designing the holiday break for December 20th - January 6th, was that all votes would end on December 19th. We had envisioned the last batch of votes to begin the week prior on December 12th, so nothing new being posted on the 19th.
Thank you for bringing this up, as it should have been made more clear in the proposal. As we approach the end of the year we will make sure to coordinate with the Foundation and top delegates to get a few announcements posted.
DAOplomats voted in favor of Improving Predictability.
As we communicated earlier, we were supportive of the holiday break towards the end of the year and having all proposals start on Thursdays.
DAOplomats voted in favor of Improving Predictability.
As we communicated earlier, we were supportive of the holiday break towards the end of the year and having all proposals start on Thursdays.
@Entropy I am looking at the calendar and I am just seeing December 20, falls on a Friday. Thus, a ton of proposals could get in just a day before the start of the holidays resulting in a week’s holiday being missed. Is that something to be addressed or would there be no new proposals posted on the 19th?
does make sense. Remindes me some diagram about bribe voting, you know what I am talking about.
Jokes aside, my question is: are we already in a situation in which the biweekly call should become a weekly one? Because what you proposed make sense but has this nasty byproduct that we should try to push away as much as possible. Reason is simple, if we settle now on weekly call means that in 1y from now we are gonna be likely drowning in stuff to do. I don't think we are there yet, because while sometimes gov calls go over the counter, sometimes instead they finish a few minutes earlier. Intuitively, this makes me think the biweekly allocation is enough to manage the load of proposal, which makes me wonder if the proposals should go to snapshot instead on a biweekly cadence.
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 vote in favor of both the implementation of the calendar and the implementation of the approval process.
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 vote in favor of both the implementation of the calendar and the implementation of the approval process.
We believe that the approval process can get delegates more involved in proposals early on, and prevent proposers from working on something that does not have enough support. It takes a lot of work and effort to make a good proposal, and we should make sure that it is not wasted just because delegates are reluctant to give honest feedback until the final on-chain vote.
While the approval process does not guarantee the proposal's future success, it does ensure that at least some delegates have read it and supported it enough to give it a public thumbs up.
I voted in the following order on this proposal at the temp check stage:
Starting all votes on Thursdays and introducing a holiday break will make it easier for delegates to prepare adequately to vote on proposals.
Thank you for crafting this much-needed proposal. We agree that batching proposals will, “allow delegates who don’t follow discussions as closely a few days to see what will be voted on and properly prepare.”
With that said, we’d like to get some information on the workflow of batched proposals. Are you suggesting for Entropy to post all proposals to Snapshot and Tally or WILL proposers still BE required to find a sponsor to post? Also, will Entropy maintain a thread on the forum with all batched proposals to be posted? (so delegates can review and prepare to vote)
I couldn’t agree more with this proposal. I definitely voted FOR.
The challenge of staying up-to-date, thoroughly analyzing proposals and their comments to provide a context-based and fully transparent opinion is a tremendous task that sometimes overlaps with other responsibilities due to the urgent need to raise our voice.
We're voting FOR Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO's Operations.
This proposal addresses key operational challenges without major drawbacks. Setting Thursday as the standard voting day enhances predictability for delegates. The holiday break prevents burnout. These changes streamline governance processes and reduce delegate fatigue.
We're voting FOR Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO's Operations.
This proposal addresses key operational challenges without major drawbacks. Setting Thursday as the standard voting day enhances predictability for delegates. The holiday break prevents burnout. These changes streamline governance processes and reduce delegate fatigue.
The optional delegate approval process warrants further discussion. While it could improve proposal quality, it may create barriers for new contributors. We suggest implementing the core changes first, then reassessing the need for additional processes.
Overall, this proposal offers simple yet effective improvements to DAO operations. It merits support to enhance governance efficiency.
The Snapshot vote has concluded with Improving Predictability as the top choice. Therefore the DAO has elected to adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025.
The remaining timeline as outlined in the proposal is still on track:
The Snapshot vote has concluded with Improving Predictability as the top choice. Therefore the DAO has elected to adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025.
The remaining timeline as outlined in the proposal is still on track:
Assuming the proposal passes the Snapshot vote, preparation for the first batch of proposals to align with the new schedule. We recommend that no Snapshot votes are posted after July 21st to help ensure a smooth transition for the first batch to begin August 1st.
Next steps to be carried out by the Entropy team:
With there being notable interest from some delegates for a more detailed approval process, we are committed to helping the DAO reassess this option at a later date, potentially in the beginning of 2025 after the newly adopted holiday break. Our team will continue to ideate and take in feedback for how we can get more delegates involved earlier in the proposal discussion process.
Thank you to everyone for providing thoughtful comments and suggestions on this topic.
Voted in favour of this, improving predictability, but no approval process. Its quite hard to stay up to date with the DAO and its voting on the side so this will really help clean up the DAO.
We fully agree with the first part of this initiative to improve predictability for delegate participation. However, the delegate approval process in its current suggested form requires further discussion. Whether or not temperature checks should have additional hurdles for the sake of delegate fatigue is something we have yet to form opinion on fully.
We believe that we should have more temperature check votes in general, for new ideas that aren't that deeply planned and that more than likely fail, but also bring hard and fast attention to potentially critical or innovative issues (e.g. Camelot's incentive proposal). However, we also understand the concerns around low quality and low support votes. We look forward to a healthy discussion on this topic moving forward.
I voted in the following order on this proposal at the temp check stage:
Starting all votes on Thursdays and introducing a holiday break will make it easier for delegates to prepare adequately to vote on proposals.
I don't think an approval process is necessary. I think proposers are adequately incentivized to avoid submitting low value proposals by the Snapshot and Tally proposal thresholds and by the desire to avoid having a proposal fail in public.
@GFXlabs @SEEDGov @DisruptionJoe @Entropy Thanks for the suggestion/feedback re: Tally. We can implement a notification on proposals that are submitted outside the proposal window.
I couldn’t agree more with this proposal. I definitely voted FOR.
The challenge of staying up-to-date, thoroughly analyzing proposals and their comments to provide a context-based and fully transparent opinion is a tremendous task that sometimes overlaps with other responsibilities due to the urgent need to raise our voice.
I love the new proposal, the designated off times, the order, and the structure it brings, as it will allow us, as delegates, to have better organization and planning for the DAO’s next steps and each of its initiatives.
Thank you for building this.
Edit: The authors for both of these proposals decided to delay their move to Snapshot. Please check the proposals for up to date information.
After reaching out to proposal authors, 2 have indicated the need to go to a vote this week. So these Snapshot votes will begin on Thursday, July 25th.
Edit: The authors for both of these proposals decided to delay their move to Snapshot. Please check the proposals for up to date information.
After reaching out to proposal authors, 2 have indicated the need to go to a vote this week. So these Snapshot votes will begin on Thursday, July 25th.
The Foundation has also posted the first round up of active & upcoming votes. Weekly voting reminders can be found in forum under this new topic.
The Arbitrum Delegate Google Calendar has been updated to reflect the newly adopted holiday period.
Voting for "Improving Predictability", I agree that having a more set schedule can help with delegates planning their voting. While I can see the argument voting can be delayed a week if a deadline is missed, I don't think that is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
I will not be voting for the delegate approval process. I don't think the volume of votes really requires it and projects already have the ability to get delegate input beforehand if they are inclined too.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR the option of Improving Predictability (No Approval Process) on Snapshot.
The proposal addresses an emerging issue within the community. Although Arbitrum communications are somewhat organized, the governance proposal-to-voting pipeline lacks structure. Starting on Thursday is ideal because people tend to be busier toward the end of the week. This timing allows ample time early in the week for deliberation and provides sufficient time in the following period for voting. At Blockworks, we believe that improving the predictability of voting schedules will help reduce delegate fatigue and bring better consistency into the DAO.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR the option of Improving Predictability (No Approval Process) on Snapshot.
The proposal addresses an emerging issue within the community. Although Arbitrum communications are somewhat organized, the governance proposal-to-voting pipeline lacks structure. Starting on Thursday is ideal because people tend to be busier toward the end of the week. This timing allows ample time early in the week for deliberation and provides sufficient time in the following period for voting. At Blockworks, we believe that improving the predictability of voting schedules will help reduce delegate fatigue and bring better consistency into the DAO.
However, we would like to caution against a delegate approval process as structured in this proposal because while we understand it is to encourage delegate cooperation outside of the forums, implementing an incentive like this without more structure may inadvertently lead to more politics. We would like to revisit this at a later date though, as we believe that this would be a worthy idea of pursuing in reference to specific proposals, such as highly technical proposals (i.e., posting the block hash to the L1, BoLD upgrades, etc).
Another great proposal from @entropy - building more structure around proposals and communications (strong agree with @GFXlabs here). I’m less convinced about the 4 delegate threshold given the existing concentration and the fact that proposers already have to find a delegate to post their proposal, which can be a disincentive for people coming to the DAO for the first time. So with that said, I’m voting for aligning incentives (top ranking) but not for the delegate approval.
My highest rank vote was to "Improve predictability", as that will help all delegates and the ecosystem as whole to enhance the processes within the DAO. The Delegate approval can be added in a later stage, but it does not feel necessary at the moment.
I am voting in support of predictability only on Snapshot. Having a more structured schedule for voting would definitely allow more efficiency and better planning for delegates. Concerning the delegate approval process, I don't think it's necessary as the current system is still working well without major problems or without being too overwhelming. Introducing this threshold would only push for more lobbying and add unneeded steps in the process. I don't think that it is necessary for the moment.
I don't like Optional: Delegate Approval Process
Thus we are adding too much bureaucracy to a proposal that should help all delegates and the community become more clear. Bureaucracy only complicates processes, and forcing delegates to simply submit to procedures that limit them is a bad idea.
But otherwise, the idea is good.
I really like this proposal, however I'd like to point out a potential vulnerability:
Nothing prevents a user from putting a proposal onchain outside of "acceptable" time frames. If we normalize the practice of, for example, not posting proposals onchain during holidays, or certain time frames, it creates an opportunity for an attacker to create a proposal that might be missed.
I really like this proposal, however I'd like to point out a potential vulnerability:
Nothing prevents a user from putting a proposal onchain outside of "acceptable" time frames. If we normalize the practice of, for example, not posting proposals onchain during holidays, or certain time frames, it creates an opportunity for an attacker to create a proposal that might be missed.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to consider entrusting the security council to veto proposals that are created outside of "acceptable" times? Or perhaps encourage the DAO members to always vote "no" on proposals that aren't at acceptable times?
On behalf of the UADP, we think the predictability component is the most important. Knowing and having a set timeline for when votes will be posted is the only way we can properly scale DAO votes into the future in our opinion. The piece around having delegates submit approvals we think for now is not needed, but could be revisited very soon. Maybe we can have some sort of "approval" team that just sanity checks proposals before they make it to the forums, or anything else in this regards without requiring an intensive 4 approvals.
We vote FOR "Predicability, Approval Process" and "Improving Predicability" as the next choice.
As described in our feedback to the original proposal, we had concerns on the approval process and criteria but Entropy team provided the updated proposal, which is reasonable to us, and since we see the Optimism Collective has applied this system in a slightly different form and it works to some extent, we believe it's worth trying it at least as a trial. We also understand that the current form works as expected (a few proposals are rejected on Snapshot as temp-checks), and only improving predicability is already a reasonable improvement for the governance.
Voting in favour of predicability only.
We need a way for people to know when they will have to do their job (yes, doing this has the responsibilities of a job knowing the consequence of certain votes; and also has for some compensation attached).
Voting in favour of predicability only.
We need a way for people to know when they will have to do their job (yes, doing this has the responsibilities of a job knowing the consequence of certain votes; and also has for some compensation attached).
I don't currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don't think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication. Would like to see this option (approval), if fails, to be reconsidered in 6 months, after a) we have more data on this b) we have had redelegation weeks and other initiatives that might help toward this goal c) other initiatives that could further reinforce the governance strength we have in arbi.
Cheers!
Voted for Predictability #1 and Predictability + Delegate Approval #2
Reasoning being Predictability is super low hanging fruit and organization should be a priority while I believe Delegate Approval is important but not something that will have as much impact.
I support this proposal and voted accordingly. I think it makes sense to have a fixed date for the DAO on votings and it would be great to have it tracked similiar to how Optimism does it with their calendar. And I want to echo @GFXlabs comment on the addition to Tally to help enforce it better.
gm
I don't have a strong preference on this, I generally don't feel the need to structure the proposal process further. A vote lasts 1 week so delegates have any day of the week available to vote.
The risk is that people miss the posting day for whatever reason (the delegate that was supposed to submit it can't do it that day) and the submission is delayed by 1 week.
From our experience at other DAOs and time, we think that predicting the timeframe of votes is most important and are excited to see this hopefully come into fruition. However, we are not in favor of a delegate approval process at this time as we don't think things are too overwhelming. Introducing this only introduces a level of extra politics and lobbying that we think is unneeded for a project or vote to be snapshot held.
This proposal aims to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO operations by setting guidelines for voting. Key measures include starting all votes on Thursdays and implementing a holiday break from December 20 to January 6. These changes intend to reduce delegate fatigue and enhance governance efficiency without altering the DAO Constitution.
We are voting in favor of predictability. It is essential for people to know when they need to act, as this role carries job-like responsibilities and compensation. We also agree with JOJO's point that more information is needed before implementing delegate approval for Snapshot.
I don’t currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don’t think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication.
Thank you for this proposal. I believe its intention is good. However, there might be another issue: some proposals could be overlooked. Because many delegates tend to focus only on proposals on Snapshot and Tally, rather than regularly checking posts in the forum.
This proposal is now live on Snapshot.
This is a ranked choice vote. Due to the character restrictions on Snapshot, each choice had to be abridged. So for extra clarification below is a short summary of each choice:
thank you for putting this proposal forward!
regarding the set schedule for votes: it is a practice that has been working in DAOs ever since the MakerDAO days. so it makes sense to consider it. but I worry about the door it might open, because in MakerDAO there we’re explicitly appointed governance facilitators, from GovAlpha, that would spend their time cat hearding the people and proposals that should get to a vote on the set date. Those people had a lot of centralized power. Too much in my opinion. I’m not sure if this is the right path for Arbitrum DAO.
I voted in the following order on this proposal at the temp check stage:
Starting all votes on Thursdays and introducing a holiday break will make it easier for delegates to prepare adequately to vote on proposals.
I don't think an approval process is necessary. I think proposers are adequately incentivized to avoid submitting low value proposals by the Snapshot and Tally proposal thresholds and by the desire to avoid having a proposal fail in public.
@GFXlabs @SEEDGov @DisruptionJoe @Entropy Thanks for the suggestion/feedback re: Tally. We can implement a notification on proposals that are submitted outside the proposal window.
I couldn’t agree more with this proposal. I definitely voted FOR.
The challenge of staying up-to-date, thoroughly analyzing proposals and their comments to provide a context-based and fully transparent opinion is a tremendous task that sometimes overlaps with other responsibilities due to the urgent need to raise our voice.
I love the new proposal, the designated off times, the order, and the structure it brings, as it will allow us, as delegates, to have better organization and planning for the DAO’s next steps and each of its initiatives.
Thank you for building this.
Edit: The authors for both of these proposals decided to delay their move to Snapshot. Please check the proposals for up to date information.
After reaching out to proposal authors, 2 have indicated the need to go to a vote this week. So these Snapshot votes will begin on Thursday, July 25th.
Edit: The authors for both of these proposals decided to delay their move to Snapshot. Please check the proposals for up to date information.
After reaching out to proposal authors, 2 have indicated the need to go to a vote this week. So these Snapshot votes will begin on Thursday, July 25th.
The Foundation has also posted the first round up of active & upcoming votes. Weekly voting reminders can be found in forum under this new topic.
The Arbitrum Delegate Google Calendar has been updated to reflect the newly adopted holiday period.
Voting for "Improving Predictability", I agree that having a more set schedule can help with delegates planning their voting. While I can see the argument voting can be delayed a week if a deadline is missed, I don't think that is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
I will not be voting for the delegate approval process. I don't think the volume of votes really requires it and projects already have the ability to get delegate input beforehand if they are inclined too.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR the option of Improving Predictability (No Approval Process) on Snapshot.
The proposal addresses an emerging issue within the community. Although Arbitrum communications are somewhat organized, the governance proposal-to-voting pipeline lacks structure. Starting on Thursday is ideal because people tend to be busier toward the end of the week. This timing allows ample time early in the week for deliberation and provides sufficient time in the following period for voting. At Blockworks, we believe that improving the predictability of voting schedules will help reduce delegate fatigue and bring better consistency into the DAO.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR the option of Improving Predictability (No Approval Process) on Snapshot.
The proposal addresses an emerging issue within the community. Although Arbitrum communications are somewhat organized, the governance proposal-to-voting pipeline lacks structure. Starting on Thursday is ideal because people tend to be busier toward the end of the week. This timing allows ample time early in the week for deliberation and provides sufficient time in the following period for voting. At Blockworks, we believe that improving the predictability of voting schedules will help reduce delegate fatigue and bring better consistency into the DAO.
However, we would like to caution against a delegate approval process as structured in this proposal because while we understand it is to encourage delegate cooperation outside of the forums, implementing an incentive like this without more structure may inadvertently lead to more politics. We would like to revisit this at a later date though, as we believe that this would be a worthy idea of pursuing in reference to specific proposals, such as highly technical proposals (i.e., posting the block hash to the L1, BoLD upgrades, etc).
Another great proposal from @entropy - building more structure around proposals and communications (strong agree with @GFXlabs here). I’m less convinced about the 4 delegate threshold given the existing concentration and the fact that proposers already have to find a delegate to post their proposal, which can be a disincentive for people coming to the DAO for the first time. So with that said, I’m voting for aligning incentives (top ranking) but not for the delegate approval.
My highest rank vote was to "Improve predictability", as that will help all delegates and the ecosystem as whole to enhance the processes within the DAO. The Delegate approval can be added in a later stage, but it does not feel necessary at the moment.
I am voting in support of predictability only on Snapshot. Having a more structured schedule for voting would definitely allow more efficiency and better planning for delegates. Concerning the delegate approval process, I don't think it's necessary as the current system is still working well without major problems or without being too overwhelming. Introducing this threshold would only push for more lobbying and add unneeded steps in the process. I don't think that it is necessary for the moment.
I don't like Optional: Delegate Approval Process
Thus we are adding too much bureaucracy to a proposal that should help all delegates and the community become more clear. Bureaucracy only complicates processes, and forcing delegates to simply submit to procedures that limit them is a bad idea.
But otherwise, the idea is good.
I really like this proposal, however I'd like to point out a potential vulnerability:
Nothing prevents a user from putting a proposal onchain outside of "acceptable" time frames. If we normalize the practice of, for example, not posting proposals onchain during holidays, or certain time frames, it creates an opportunity for an attacker to create a proposal that might be missed.
I really like this proposal, however I'd like to point out a potential vulnerability:
Nothing prevents a user from putting a proposal onchain outside of "acceptable" time frames. If we normalize the practice of, for example, not posting proposals onchain during holidays, or certain time frames, it creates an opportunity for an attacker to create a proposal that might be missed.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to consider entrusting the security council to veto proposals that are created outside of "acceptable" times? Or perhaps encourage the DAO members to always vote "no" on proposals that aren't at acceptable times?
On behalf of the UADP, we think the predictability component is the most important. Knowing and having a set timeline for when votes will be posted is the only way we can properly scale DAO votes into the future in our opinion. The piece around having delegates submit approvals we think for now is not needed, but could be revisited very soon. Maybe we can have some sort of "approval" team that just sanity checks proposals before they make it to the forums, or anything else in this regards without requiring an intensive 4 approvals.
We vote FOR "Predicability, Approval Process" and "Improving Predicability" as the next choice.
As described in our feedback to the original proposal, we had concerns on the approval process and criteria but Entropy team provided the updated proposal, which is reasonable to us, and since we see the Optimism Collective has applied this system in a slightly different form and it works to some extent, we believe it's worth trying it at least as a trial. We also understand that the current form works as expected (a few proposals are rejected on Snapshot as temp-checks), and only improving predicability is already a reasonable improvement for the governance.
Voting in favour of predicability only.
We need a way for people to know when they will have to do their job (yes, doing this has the responsibilities of a job knowing the consequence of certain votes; and also has for some compensation attached).
Voting in favour of predicability only.
We need a way for people to know when they will have to do their job (yes, doing this has the responsibilities of a job knowing the consequence of certain votes; and also has for some compensation attached).
I don't currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don't think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication. Would like to see this option (approval), if fails, to be reconsidered in 6 months, after a) we have more data on this b) we have had redelegation weeks and other initiatives that might help toward this goal c) other initiatives that could further reinforce the governance strength we have in arbi.
Cheers!
Voted for Predictability #1 and Predictability + Delegate Approval #2
Reasoning being Predictability is super low hanging fruit and organization should be a priority while I believe Delegate Approval is important but not something that will have as much impact.
I support this proposal and voted accordingly. I think it makes sense to have a fixed date for the DAO on votings and it would be great to have it tracked similiar to how Optimism does it with their calendar. And I want to echo @GFXlabs comment on the addition to Tally to help enforce it better.
gm
I don't have a strong preference on this, I generally don't feel the need to structure the proposal process further. A vote lasts 1 week so delegates have any day of the week available to vote.
The risk is that people miss the posting day for whatever reason (the delegate that was supposed to submit it can't do it that day) and the submission is delayed by 1 week.
From our experience at other DAOs and time, we think that predicting the timeframe of votes is most important and are excited to see this hopefully come into fruition. However, we are not in favor of a delegate approval process at this time as we don't think things are too overwhelming. Introducing this only introduces a level of extra politics and lobbying that we think is unneeded for a project or vote to be snapshot held.
This proposal aims to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO operations by setting guidelines for voting. Key measures include starting all votes on Thursdays and implementing a holiday break from December 20 to January 6. These changes intend to reduce delegate fatigue and enhance governance efficiency without altering the DAO Constitution.
We are voting in favor of predictability. It is essential for people to know when they need to act, as this role carries job-like responsibilities and compensation. We also agree with JOJO's point that more information is needed before implementing delegate approval for Snapshot.
I don’t currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don’t think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication.
Thank you for this proposal. I believe its intention is good. However, there might be another issue: some proposals could be overlooked. Because many delegates tend to focus only on proposals on Snapshot and Tally, rather than regularly checking posts in the forum.
This proposal is now live on Snapshot.
This is a ranked choice vote. Due to the character restrictions on Snapshot, each choice had to be abridged. So for extra clarification below is a short summary of each choice:
thank you for putting this proposal forward!
regarding the set schedule for votes: it is a practice that has been working in DAOs ever since the MakerDAO days. so it makes sense to consider it. but I worry about the door it might open, because in MakerDAO there we’re explicitly appointed governance facilitators, from GovAlpha, that would spend their time cat hearding the people and proposals that should get to a vote on the set date. Those people had a lot of centralized power. Too much in my opinion. I’m not sure if this is the right path for Arbitrum DAO.
gm
I don't have a strong preference on this, I generally don't feel the need to structure the proposal process further. A vote lasts 1 week so delegates have any day of the week available to vote.
The risk is that people miss the posting day for whatever reason (the delegate that was supposed to submit it can't do it that day) and the submission is delayed by 1 week.
In favor of a break between the end of December and early Jan.
Instead, I am against a minimal threshold of comments/endorsements. It's always and understandably recommended that proposers gather early feedback from delegates, but we should not enforce it. Also I second this:
I personally believe we should have many more proposals that get to the temperature check stage and get voted against and don’t move forward. I don’t think that’s a problem. I think that’s a sign of an healthy and diverse community.
This proposal aims to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO operations by setting guidelines for voting. Key measures include starting all votes on Thursdays and implementing a holiday break from December 20 to January 6. These changes intend to reduce delegate fatigue and enhance governance efficiency without altering the DAO Constitution.
We are voting in favor of predictability. It is essential for people to know when they need to act, as this role carries job-like responsibilities and compensation. We also agree with JOJO's point that more information is needed before implementing delegate approval for Snapshot.
I don’t currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don’t think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication.
This proposal is now live on Snapshot.
This is a ranked choice vote. Due to the character restrictions on Snapshot, each choice had to be abridged. So for extra clarification below is a short summary of each choice:
Improving Predictability - adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025. Only emergency proposals should be posted outside these guidelines
Predictability, Approval Process - In addition to adopting both guidelines from Improving Predictability, also implement a delegate approval process that requires a statement from 4 delegate with greater than 500k voting power for a proposal to be posted to a vote
AGAINST - do not adopt either measure
ABSTAIN
thank you for putting this proposal forward!
regarding the set schedule for votes: it is a practice that has been working in DAOs ever since the MakerDAO days. so it makes sense to consider it. but I worry about the door it might open, because in MakerDAO there we’re explicitly appointed governance facilitators, from GovAlpha, that would spend their time cat hearding the people and proposals that should get to a vote on the set date. Those people had a lot of centralized power. Too much in my opinion. I’m not sure if this is the right path for Arbitrum DAO.
regarding the Delegate Approval Process: @Entropy could you provide examples of proposals that you consider that “went too soon” for offchain temperature check on Snapshot?
I’m asking this because right now, the criteria to get an offchain proposal on Snapshot is actually quite high, meaning, only a delegate with sufficient voting power can do it.
it seems to me that by proposing this Delegate Approval Process we’re saying we don’t trust a single delegate with a lot of voting power to have the discernment to decide if a proposal someone is asking them to post on snapshot, is sufficiently valid to be posted or not, and that we would need a consensus of delegates to decide that.
I personally believe we should have many more proposals that get to the temperature check stage and get voted against and don’t move forward. I don’t think that’s a problem. I think that’s a sign of an healthy and diverse community.
At SEED, we strongly support this proposal as it has the potential to streamline the work and assessments conducted by delegates, resulting in more organized and professional insights.
We also agree with selecting Thursday as the starting day for voting, as the variables considered in this decision seem appropriate.
At SEED, we strongly support this proposal as it has the potential to streamline the work and assessments conducted by delegates, resulting in more organized and professional insights.
We also agree with selecting Thursday as the starting day for voting, as the variables considered in this decision seem appropriate.
Additionally, we want to emphasize the importance of being mindful of the "holidays" period. In other DAOs, this time has sometimes been exploited to push through proposals—occasionally malicious ones—due to reduced engagement.
To help encourage delegates to take on this additional responsibility, as part of the delegate incentive program a bonus point can be awarded to delegates on Karma who approve a proposal that eventually passes on Snapshot or Tally. This is just a suggestion and something we will leave to the discretion of the @seedlatam team.
Regarding delegates signaling before posting on Snapshot, we are aware of the trade-offs and potential outcomes involved. This type of signaling has been effective for other DAOs, resulting in implicit but effective prioritization and, at times, more professional proposal writing. In those DAOs, it is not necessarily linked to specific incentives, so we need to find proxies, other variables, or a way to ensure it remains a thoughtful and professional decision rather than merely an incentive for farming.
Using the delegates program and complementary tools to enforce and promote better engagement with this type of social contract seems reasonable.
Regarding @GFXlabs suggestion:
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
We are highly supportive of this implementation. If feasible, it should be implemented as soon as possible.
Also ask the SEED Latam folks who administer the delegate incentive program to confirm that proposals posted outside approved times don’t count towards participation. Both of the above would let us lean into the natural tendency to minimize work, since there’s not an easy way to enforce this at the smart contract level.
We support this initiative because we are currently exploring improvements for the delegates program. The timing for commenting and voting is being considered to encourage early engagement and feedback, and to evaluate contributions more precisely. This approach would not only reduce workload but also enhance policy-making and the quality of proposals.
Thanks @entropy for considering our feedback and putting this proposal together!
Thank you for your suggestions, which will benefit all delegates. We believe this has been much needed change for the Arbitrum governance.
We agree with the proposed schedule of starting all votings on Thursday. Regarding the approval criteria, we think it is good that proposals that are not approved by some number of delegates will no longer be moved to the snapshot, while ensuring minimal decentralization. We also think it is good to have a holiday period. (For Optimism governance, they have "seasons" for each 6 months and breaks between them. Possibly a summer break can be considered for Arbitrum governance as well)
Thank you for your suggestions, which will benefit all delegates. We believe this has been much needed change for the Arbitrum governance.
We agree with the proposed schedule of starting all votings on Thursday. Regarding the approval criteria, we think it is good that proposals that are not approved by some number of delegates will no longer be moved to the snapshot, while ensuring minimal decentralization. We also think it is good to have a holiday period. (For Optimism governance, they have "seasons" for each 6 months and breaks between them. Possibly a summer break can be considered for Arbitrum governance as well)
We have a question about the approval criteria here. Have you considered the possibility that this approvals could become difficult to obtain, making it harder for many proposals to be moved to the snapshot, or conversely, that this approval process could become a mere formality? In order to determine if the criteria to be set at this time will work, we think it would be better to have a trial period first and then make a decision about the right approval criteria after the trial period.
"...as a temperature check on Snapshot", right?
Not for onchain votes, right?
hey folks at @Entropy!
what was the rationale for making this temperature check poll on Snapshot, a ranked choice voting?
hey folks at @Entropy!
what was the rationale for making this temperature check poll on Snapshot, a ranked choice voting?
I feel that since you've included both "Improving Predictability" and "Predictability, Approval Process" as independent options, and they are cumulative, this should have been just a simple "Single choice voting" where voters would choose between the 4 options, which one they prefer.
A ranked choice voting system is more adequate to elect candidates, where choices are not cumulative, than for this use case.
For example, as a voter, to have to rank these options between themselves feels a bit silly, especially because putting "AGAINST" in number #2 and "ABSTAIN" in number #3, or the opposite, makes practically no difference on the outcome of the vote 🫠
Nice work! I support the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s operations. By establishing regular voting days and implementing a holiday break, delegates will benefit from increased predictability and reduced fatigue. The suggested delegate approval process also ensures that proposals are thoroughly vetted before moving forward, which can enhance the overall quality of governance. These changes ought to promote a more organized and efficient process without incurring additional costs to the DAO.
Useful proposal.
However, it is very difficult to determine public holidays for different countries. Also, I think there should be an exception for updating security protocols and other emergencies.
p.s. I really like that you set your own vote for Thursday )
:+1: Agree on setting a regular voting schedule and implementing a holiday break,
it ensures more effective participation and prevents burnout.
Additionally, the delegate approval process can enhance proposal quality, fostering a more organized and efficient governance system without incurring any costs.
This is a very welcome proposal. Thank you!
I support the idea of having all proposals start on Thursdays. The rationales behind that is pretty solid and would definitely help reduce delegate fatigue as we would know when exactly proposals hit Snapshot/Tally and when they would be ending.
This is a very welcome proposal. Thank you!
I support the idea of having all proposals start on Thursdays. The rationales behind that is pretty solid and would definitely help reduce delegate fatigue as we would know when exactly proposals hit Snapshot/Tally and when they would be ending.
The holiday break is also much needed. I remember having to review and sign proposals around December 31st last year; that wasn't fun. This would definitely help.
Regarding the delegate approval process though, I don't support it. The percentage of premature proposals hitting Snapshot is much lower than proper ones that go live. I don't think there needs to be that additional process at least right now.
Finally, plus one on @GFXlabs suggestion regarding the colored banners/messaging. It would be nice if Snapshot and Tally could implement.
Thank you everyone for the additional comments and thoughts. A few last responses and details before we post this proposal to Snapshot tomorrow.
We’d like to reiterate that this is just a social agreement between delegates, so changes can be made at any point. However, the idea of a trial period as suggested by @Tane, is interesting. With our current timeline starting August 1st, the remainder of 2024 can effectively serve as a 5 month trial period. Entropy Advisors is committed to gathering feedback and if necessary, revisiting this conversation at the beginning of 2025.
Thank you everyone for the additional comments and thoughts. A few last responses and details before we post this proposal to Snapshot tomorrow.
We’d like to reiterate that this is just a social agreement between delegates, so changes can be made at any point. However, the idea of a trial period as suggested by @Tane, is interesting. With our current timeline starting August 1st, the remainder of 2024 can effectively serve as a 5 month trial period. Entropy Advisors is committed to gathering feedback and if necessary, revisiting this conversation at the beginning of 2025.
As mentioned by @paulofonseca, regarding proposals that may have been a bit premature. In the last month the DAO has had 3 snapshot votes fail by a significant margin:
ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO - 99.38% Against
[Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal - 94.85% Against
Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development - 88.38% Against
To be clear, all three of these were valid proposals. While voted down by the DAO, there were supportive comments from some delegates who only wished to see certain changes before voting FOR. Temperature checks on Snapshot are a great way to quickly gather this type of feedback, so we very much recognize the argument that a delegate approval process may slow down the DAOs governance processes or increase friction for contributors too much.
Due to these tradeoffs, our team does not hold a strong stance on the addition of a delegate approval process. However, from our conversations with delegates this idea was brought up several times and there was clearly appetite for minimizing votes. Thus once posted to Snapshot it will be presented as a separate option.
As mentioned a few times on this forum and from additional conversations it was clear that a threshold of 6 delegate or 20m total VP was too high. Based on this feedback we will be proposing a reduced delegate threshold of 4 delegates who have >500k VP.
This is an interesting proposal.
IMO, having a schedule will help to organize the workload and improve the quality of the engagement on the forum. The other suggestions to help to enforce the execution are worth a closer look too!
This is an interesting proposal.
IMO, having a schedule will help to organize the workload and improve the quality of the engagement on the forum. The other suggestions to help to enforce the execution are worth a closer look too!
Regarding the point below, maybe it would be interesting to lower the threshold (VP) a bit. In the last few proposals, around 21 delegates with a VP above 500k voted, so the 6 delegates is almost 30%. (the concern here is to have a proposal hanging because got only 4 or 5 delegates supporting it).
There are currently 64 delegates with greater than 500k in voting power (VP), so our recommended threshold for delegate approval is either a cumulative of 20m VP (requires at least 2 delegates) or 6 delegates (~10% of delegates with necessary power to post votes). If a proposal reaches either of the thresholds, it can be considered that there is consensus among enough delegates that it is ready to move forward.
Good idea @GFXlabs :+1: because it enhances the governance process by using visual cues and incentives to ensure compliance with the voting calendar. Brightly colored banners and non-recognition of off-schedule proposals help delegates manage their workload effectively, maintaining order and predictability in the voting process without requiring complex enforcement mechanisms.
I agree with the proposal to start all proposals on Thursdays, as it will help reduce delegate fatigue and create a predictable schedule. This is a very useful idea. However, I have some concerns. One potential issue is that this rigid schedule might limit flexibility for urgent or sensitive proposals.
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
Thank you @GFXlabs for the great suggestions! We agree that they would help enforce the social agreement. Based on initial conversations with each team, it appears that both of these can be implemented.
This is a good call out @jameskbh, before posting to Snapshot we will post a poll in this thread to gather final opinions on what the # of delegates the threshold should be for approval.
Thank you @GFXlabs for the great suggestions! We agree that they would help enforce the social agreement. Based on initial conversations with each team, it appears that both of these can be implemented.
This is a good call out @jameskbh, before posting to Snapshot we will post a poll in this thread to gather final opinions on what the # of delegates the threshold should be for approval.
Regarding the concern on making sure there is an exception for security proposals and other emergencies, our proposal outlines that given such a situation any agreed upon guidelines should be discarded and the sensitive proposal moved to a vote immediately.
In the event of an emergency proposal that is time-sensitive in nature we recommend that any adopted guidelines be waived and the proposal be put up to a vote immediately. In our opinion, only Constitutional AIPs that relate to security matters should be considered as emergency proposals.
Thank you all for the thoughts and feedback thus far!
Agree on the calendar (quite useful) and agree on the take on numbers.
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
Also ask the SEED Latam folks who administer the delegate incentive program to confirm that proposals posted outside approved times don’t count towards participation.
gm
I don't have a strong preference on this, I generally don't feel the need to structure the proposal process further. A vote lasts 1 week so delegates have any day of the week available to vote.
The risk is that people miss the posting day for whatever reason (the delegate that was supposed to submit it can't do it that day) and the submission is delayed by 1 week.
In favor of a break between the end of December and early Jan.
Instead, I am against a minimal threshold of comments/endorsements. It's always and understandably recommended that proposers gather early feedback from delegates, but we should not enforce it. Also I second this:
I personally believe we should have many more proposals that get to the temperature check stage and get voted against and don’t move forward. I don’t think that’s a problem. I think that’s a sign of an healthy and diverse community.
This proposal aims to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO operations by setting guidelines for voting. Key measures include starting all votes on Thursdays and implementing a holiday break from December 20 to January 6. These changes intend to reduce delegate fatigue and enhance governance efficiency without altering the DAO Constitution.
We are voting in favor of predictability. It is essential for people to know when they need to act, as this role carries job-like responsibilities and compensation. We also agree with JOJO's point that more information is needed before implementing delegate approval for Snapshot.
I don’t currently fancy having delegates having to approve it to go to snapshot, because I don’t think we are at a point in which votes are spread enough in enough active delegates. While the numbers might seems to point so, we already have a good amount of non active ones. Likely this will translate in pinging some high vote and usually very active candidates to push for the publication.
This proposal is now live on Snapshot.
This is a ranked choice vote. Due to the character restrictions on Snapshot, each choice had to be abridged. So for extra clarification below is a short summary of each choice:
Improving Predictability - adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025. Only emergency proposals should be posted outside these guidelines
Predictability, Approval Process - In addition to adopting both guidelines from Improving Predictability, also implement a delegate approval process that requires a statement from 4 delegate with greater than 500k voting power for a proposal to be posted to a vote
AGAINST - do not adopt either measure
ABSTAIN
thank you for putting this proposal forward!
regarding the set schedule for votes: it is a practice that has been working in DAOs ever since the MakerDAO days. so it makes sense to consider it. but I worry about the door it might open, because in MakerDAO there we’re explicitly appointed governance facilitators, from GovAlpha, that would spend their time cat hearding the people and proposals that should get to a vote on the set date. Those people had a lot of centralized power. Too much in my opinion. I’m not sure if this is the right path for Arbitrum DAO.
regarding the Delegate Approval Process: @Entropy could you provide examples of proposals that you consider that “went too soon” for offchain temperature check on Snapshot?
I’m asking this because right now, the criteria to get an offchain proposal on Snapshot is actually quite high, meaning, only a delegate with sufficient voting power can do it.
it seems to me that by proposing this Delegate Approval Process we’re saying we don’t trust a single delegate with a lot of voting power to have the discernment to decide if a proposal someone is asking them to post on snapshot, is sufficiently valid to be posted or not, and that we would need a consensus of delegates to decide that.
I personally believe we should have many more proposals that get to the temperature check stage and get voted against and don’t move forward. I don’t think that’s a problem. I think that’s a sign of an healthy and diverse community.
At SEED, we strongly support this proposal as it has the potential to streamline the work and assessments conducted by delegates, resulting in more organized and professional insights.
We also agree with selecting Thursday as the starting day for voting, as the variables considered in this decision seem appropriate.
At SEED, we strongly support this proposal as it has the potential to streamline the work and assessments conducted by delegates, resulting in more organized and professional insights.
We also agree with selecting Thursday as the starting day for voting, as the variables considered in this decision seem appropriate.
Additionally, we want to emphasize the importance of being mindful of the "holidays" period. In other DAOs, this time has sometimes been exploited to push through proposals—occasionally malicious ones—due to reduced engagement.
To help encourage delegates to take on this additional responsibility, as part of the delegate incentive program a bonus point can be awarded to delegates on Karma who approve a proposal that eventually passes on Snapshot or Tally. This is just a suggestion and something we will leave to the discretion of the @seedlatam team.
Regarding delegates signaling before posting on Snapshot, we are aware of the trade-offs and potential outcomes involved. This type of signaling has been effective for other DAOs, resulting in implicit but effective prioritization and, at times, more professional proposal writing. In those DAOs, it is not necessarily linked to specific incentives, so we need to find proxies, other variables, or a way to ensure it remains a thoughtful and professional decision rather than merely an incentive for farming.
Using the delegates program and complementary tools to enforce and promote better engagement with this type of social contract seems reasonable.
Regarding @GFXlabs suggestion:
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
We are highly supportive of this implementation. If feasible, it should be implemented as soon as possible.
Also ask the SEED Latam folks who administer the delegate incentive program to confirm that proposals posted outside approved times don’t count towards participation. Both of the above would let us lean into the natural tendency to minimize work, since there’s not an easy way to enforce this at the smart contract level.
We support this initiative because we are currently exploring improvements for the delegates program. The timing for commenting and voting is being considered to encourage early engagement and feedback, and to evaluate contributions more precisely. This approach would not only reduce workload but also enhance policy-making and the quality of proposals.
Thanks @entropy for considering our feedback and putting this proposal together!
Thank you for your suggestions, which will benefit all delegates. We believe this has been much needed change for the Arbitrum governance.
We agree with the proposed schedule of starting all votings on Thursday. Regarding the approval criteria, we think it is good that proposals that are not approved by some number of delegates will no longer be moved to the snapshot, while ensuring minimal decentralization. We also think it is good to have a holiday period. (For Optimism governance, they have "seasons" for each 6 months and breaks between them. Possibly a summer break can be considered for Arbitrum governance as well)
Thank you for your suggestions, which will benefit all delegates. We believe this has been much needed change for the Arbitrum governance.
We agree with the proposed schedule of starting all votings on Thursday. Regarding the approval criteria, we think it is good that proposals that are not approved by some number of delegates will no longer be moved to the snapshot, while ensuring minimal decentralization. We also think it is good to have a holiday period. (For Optimism governance, they have "seasons" for each 6 months and breaks between them. Possibly a summer break can be considered for Arbitrum governance as well)
We have a question about the approval criteria here. Have you considered the possibility that this approvals could become difficult to obtain, making it harder for many proposals to be moved to the snapshot, or conversely, that this approval process could become a mere formality? In order to determine if the criteria to be set at this time will work, we think it would be better to have a trial period first and then make a decision about the right approval criteria after the trial period.
"...as a temperature check on Snapshot", right?
Not for onchain votes, right?
hey folks at @Entropy!
what was the rationale for making this temperature check poll on Snapshot, a ranked choice voting?
hey folks at @Entropy!
what was the rationale for making this temperature check poll on Snapshot, a ranked choice voting?
I feel that since you've included both "Improving Predictability" and "Predictability, Approval Process" as independent options, and they are cumulative, this should have been just a simple "Single choice voting" where voters would choose between the 4 options, which one they prefer.
A ranked choice voting system is more adequate to elect candidates, where choices are not cumulative, than for this use case.
For example, as a voter, to have to rank these options between themselves feels a bit silly, especially because putting "AGAINST" in number #2 and "ABSTAIN" in number #3, or the opposite, makes practically no difference on the outcome of the vote 🫠
Nice work! I support the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s operations. By establishing regular voting days and implementing a holiday break, delegates will benefit from increased predictability and reduced fatigue. The suggested delegate approval process also ensures that proposals are thoroughly vetted before moving forward, which can enhance the overall quality of governance. These changes ought to promote a more organized and efficient process without incurring additional costs to the DAO.
Useful proposal.
However, it is very difficult to determine public holidays for different countries. Also, I think there should be an exception for updating security protocols and other emergencies.
p.s. I really like that you set your own vote for Thursday )
:+1: Agree on setting a regular voting schedule and implementing a holiday break,
it ensures more effective participation and prevents burnout.
Additionally, the delegate approval process can enhance proposal quality, fostering a more organized and efficient governance system without incurring any costs.
This is a very welcome proposal. Thank you!
I support the idea of having all proposals start on Thursdays. The rationales behind that is pretty solid and would definitely help reduce delegate fatigue as we would know when exactly proposals hit Snapshot/Tally and when they would be ending.
This is a very welcome proposal. Thank you!
I support the idea of having all proposals start on Thursdays. The rationales behind that is pretty solid and would definitely help reduce delegate fatigue as we would know when exactly proposals hit Snapshot/Tally and when they would be ending.
The holiday break is also much needed. I remember having to review and sign proposals around December 31st last year; that wasn't fun. This would definitely help.
Regarding the delegate approval process though, I don't support it. The percentage of premature proposals hitting Snapshot is much lower than proper ones that go live. I don't think there needs to be that additional process at least right now.
Finally, plus one on @GFXlabs suggestion regarding the colored banners/messaging. It would be nice if Snapshot and Tally could implement.
Thank you everyone for the additional comments and thoughts. A few last responses and details before we post this proposal to Snapshot tomorrow.
We’d like to reiterate that this is just a social agreement between delegates, so changes can be made at any point. However, the idea of a trial period as suggested by @Tane, is interesting. With our current timeline starting August 1st, the remainder of 2024 can effectively serve as a 5 month trial period. Entropy Advisors is committed to gathering feedback and if necessary, revisiting this conversation at the beginning of 2025.
Thank you everyone for the additional comments and thoughts. A few last responses and details before we post this proposal to Snapshot tomorrow.
We’d like to reiterate that this is just a social agreement between delegates, so changes can be made at any point. However, the idea of a trial period as suggested by @Tane, is interesting. With our current timeline starting August 1st, the remainder of 2024 can effectively serve as a 5 month trial period. Entropy Advisors is committed to gathering feedback and if necessary, revisiting this conversation at the beginning of 2025.
As mentioned by @paulofonseca, regarding proposals that may have been a bit premature. In the last month the DAO has had 3 snapshot votes fail by a significant margin:
ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO - 99.38% Against
[Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal - 94.85% Against
Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development - 88.38% Against
To be clear, all three of these were valid proposals. While voted down by the DAO, there were supportive comments from some delegates who only wished to see certain changes before voting FOR. Temperature checks on Snapshot are a great way to quickly gather this type of feedback, so we very much recognize the argument that a delegate approval process may slow down the DAOs governance processes or increase friction for contributors too much.
Due to these tradeoffs, our team does not hold a strong stance on the addition of a delegate approval process. However, from our conversations with delegates this idea was brought up several times and there was clearly appetite for minimizing votes. Thus once posted to Snapshot it will be presented as a separate option.
As mentioned a few times on this forum and from additional conversations it was clear that a threshold of 6 delegate or 20m total VP was too high. Based on this feedback we will be proposing a reduced delegate threshold of 4 delegates who have >500k VP.
This is an interesting proposal.
IMO, having a schedule will help to organize the workload and improve the quality of the engagement on the forum. The other suggestions to help to enforce the execution are worth a closer look too!
This is an interesting proposal.
IMO, having a schedule will help to organize the workload and improve the quality of the engagement on the forum. The other suggestions to help to enforce the execution are worth a closer look too!
Regarding the point below, maybe it would be interesting to lower the threshold (VP) a bit. In the last few proposals, around 21 delegates with a VP above 500k voted, so the 6 delegates is almost 30%. (the concern here is to have a proposal hanging because got only 4 or 5 delegates supporting it).
There are currently 64 delegates with greater than 500k in voting power (VP), so our recommended threshold for delegate approval is either a cumulative of 20m VP (requires at least 2 delegates) or 6 delegates (~10% of delegates with necessary power to post votes). If a proposal reaches either of the thresholds, it can be considered that there is consensus among enough delegates that it is ready to move forward.
Good idea @GFXlabs :+1: because it enhances the governance process by using visual cues and incentives to ensure compliance with the voting calendar. Brightly colored banners and non-recognition of off-schedule proposals help delegates manage their workload effectively, maintaining order and predictability in the voting process without requiring complex enforcement mechanisms.
I agree with the proposal to start all proposals on Thursdays, as it will help reduce delegate fatigue and create a predictable schedule. This is a very useful idea. However, I have some concerns. One potential issue is that this rigid schedule might limit flexibility for urgent or sensitive proposals.
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
Thank you @GFXlabs for the great suggestions! We agree that they would help enforce the social agreement. Based on initial conversations with each team, it appears that both of these can be implemented.
This is a good call out @jameskbh, before posting to Snapshot we will post a poll in this thread to gather final opinions on what the # of delegates the threshold should be for approval.
Thank you @GFXlabs for the great suggestions! We agree that they would help enforce the social agreement. Based on initial conversations with each team, it appears that both of these can be implemented.
This is a good call out @jameskbh, before posting to Snapshot we will post a poll in this thread to gather final opinions on what the # of delegates the threshold should be for approval.
Regarding the concern on making sure there is an exception for security proposals and other emergencies, our proposal outlines that given such a situation any agreed upon guidelines should be discarded and the sensitive proposal moved to a vote immediately.
In the event of an emergency proposal that is time-sensitive in nature we recommend that any adopted guidelines be waived and the proposal be put up to a vote immediately. In our opinion, only Constitutional AIPs that relate to security matters should be considered as emergency proposals.
Thank you all for the thoughts and feedback thus far!
Agree on the calendar (quite useful) and agree on the take on numbers.
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
Also ask the SEED Latam folks who administer the delegate incentive program to confirm that proposals posted outside approved times don’t count towards participation.
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
I support this proposal and this is an excellent suggestion!
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
Also ask the SEED Latam folks who administer the delegate incentive program to confirm that proposals posted outside approved times don’t count towards participation.
Both of the above would let us lean into the natural tendency to minimize work, since there’s not an easy way to enforce this at the smart contract level.
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
I support this proposal and this is an excellent suggestion!
One suggestion, to help delegates be aware of the calendar and “soft” enforce it, is to ask Snapshot and @Frisson/Tally if a brightly colored banner or message can indicate when a proposal has been submitted outside the official calendar. Then delegates can easily choose to vote against or ignore without any additional work.
Also ask the SEED Latam folks who administer the delegate incentive program to confirm that proposals posted outside approved times don’t count towards participation.
Both of the above would let us lean into the natural tendency to minimize work, since there’s not an easy way to enforce this at the smart contract level.
