240813-1200_ Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call (2024-08-14 00_05 GMT+8)

1:43AM Aug 20, 2024

Speakers:

Matthew Stein

Alex Lumley, Savvy DeFi

Pruitt Martin

Frisson, TallyXYZ

Krzysztof Kaczor, L2Beat

Cliffton Lee, Arbitrum Foundation

Siddharth Shah

Matt Fiebach, EntropyAdvisors

Tobias, GrowThePie

Matias, GrowThePie

Varit Ruangsiri, Curia

Rika, 404 DAO

Jana Bertram, Rari Foundation

Rodrigo Vasquez, Ethereum Foundation

JB Rubinovitz

Keywords:

dao

proposal

governance

chain

ecosystem

delegates

audit

tally

couple

call

forum

voting

treasury

metrics

vote

arb

questions

topics

security

eth

Uh, we are live. Let me start by sharing my screen.

Oh, you guys should be able to see my screen. Now. We have a couple of items to go through. So let's just go straight into the on chain, AIPs, the first up. We have the arbos, 31 other one, otherwise known as Bianca upgrade, that's ongoing. This includes three different upgrades. So that is stylus, that is our piece support for a contraction as well as a NOAA fee router proposal to ease the routing of fees to the DAO treasury. So all three has actually plus temperature checks previously on snapshot. And this is just a bundle proposal as one single on chain. AIP, so very happy that we have a hit quorum and there is majority support, so the voting ends in two days. So yeah, looking forward to getting this executed. Any questions on this proposal? We've covered this in quite a few previous calls, so don't want to take up too much time. If not, let's move on. So the next one is also an on chain AIP by entropy, posted by Frison. So this is to set up the multi SIG support service. Similarly, we have gone through this proposal 120 times. The whole purpose is to set up a Dao wide multi SIG committee so that the DAO can essentially save money on setting up all these one off multi SIGs for all these different functions. So Matt from entropy and the rest of the entropy team has covered this proposal in quite great detail over the past few calls and on the forums as well. So if noone has any questions, we can move on this vote as well. Has hit quorum and has majority support. Voting ends this Friday, so this will likely be executed as well next week. Any questions or not sure if Matt or anyone from the entropy team would want to chime in? If not, I can move on. Cool. Let's move on. So the next on chain proposal is by entropy, and they are requesting for some funds to exclusively work with the arbitrum Dao for a year. This also includes a 1.5 billion our bonus. Similarly, this proposal has been through a lot of discussions over the past few weeks, but since there is still quite some time for votes to happen, wonder if Matt, or anyone from the entropy team would like to chime in with a note. If not, all good as well, we can move on.

Sure. Yeah, like Cliff said, we've we've gone over it a couple times, but it's basically structured as $100,000 a month payments until and if the team scales to seven, at which point that goes up to the full amount, which is basically $200,000 a month, pretty much the same as on snapshot. There's very, very minimal changes, but they're outlined at the top. Scope of our work is exclusively working with arbitrum Dao, know their clients in any capacity, driving strategic proposals that only benefit the DAO don't benefit us in any way, helping third parties navigate the DAO and a few things of that nature. And please like, we're getting close to quorum about 60% of the way there. So if you haven't voted yet, would be much appreciated.

Thanks. Any questions for Matt or the entropy team? I

cool. Let's move on to active temperature checks, right? So we have the ARB taking unlock ARB utility and aligned governance proposal by tally that's up on Snapchat at the moment. So voting ends in two days as well. Covered this quite a bit in the previous governance calls as well. But frisson, I don't, I don't know if you want to chime in with a couple of feedback, because I think this has gotten quite a few good deliberation and feedback from the DAO,

yeah. I'm happy to Yeah. I kind of went through it in depth, I think, on the last call. And, you know, I don't think there's anything substantive that's changed with the proposal. One Note maybe to call out is kind of the trust model of the smart contracts. The one thing I want to clarify, which I've done a couple places in the forum. But I'll share here as well is that the staking contracts are owned by the Dao. So like in the in the implementation of our staking, the DAO itself, like the core Treasury governor, the constitutional basically proposal process, is the only admin over the staking contracts. Um. And then also, this is true of any redelegation that occurs with the tally protocol. So with with staked ARB, if there's any voting power that gets locked in smart contracts and forwarded back to the tally protocol, the DAO will have exclusive, you know, admin authority over what the redelegation sort of rule bar of that voting power. And so that's just something I wanted to clarify for everyone, because it's come up a couple times. It's a it's a technical nuance. And then also on that note, like this proposal, the stage the proposal is in now is just to approve development of the staking contracts. There will be a separate proposal to actually implement the system, which will, like, literally be the smart contract upgrades that includes the implementation. And that's if you look at the proposal timeline, scheduled for, like, October, by the end of October, and that will happen after development and audit is complete. So that's another thing to note. Is, like, the DAO will have the opportunity to vote again, actually turning the system on, and at that point there will be, like, you know, full open source code, multiple audit reports, etc, etc, to review. So just a couple of maybe more technical notes that have come up since I last spoke about this topic.

Thanks. Anyone has any questions? All right, cool again. Voting ends in two days, so please be sure to review this proposal and cluster votes if you have not. Next up, we have a snapshot on transparency and standardized metrics for orbit chains. I believe this is from GrowThePie so Tobias or Matt, are you guys on the call? Yes, we

are. Yeah. Feel free to jump in,

everyone. Yeah, like we put that up on snapshot. We discussed that two weeks ago on the forum. So basically, just quick summary. What we want to do is list at least 20 chains on grow the Pi with a minimum TVL of 1 million USD on the chain, basically. So to make sure we have some some type of KPI to like list like orbit chains that really kind of matter right now, and this will be for one year as well. And then we have our basic fundamental metrics that we have on grow the pie. It's like activity metrics, it's economic metrics. It's around stablecoin market cap, etc. And basically, what has been a lot of discussion is that, like, do we need another data platform, or do we, you know, like, what's like, the costs are pretty high. That's what we heard. And so we are trying to kind of keep the cost low. Definitely, I think we answered a couple of questions on the forum as well based on that. And right now, it's hard to kind of always judge, like, where, like, where these chains go, in terms of TPS and in terms of how much data there actually is, but that was our current will be kind of set out we have from our experience so far, or we're streamlining, like, the like, how we pull the data, how we aggregate the data, and so this will be like, on a like, basically on a basis, on a like, recurring basis, reevaluated and exactly so these are our proposal. And also, don't forget, it's the fact view. So basically, have everything like on orbit chains, including also arbitrum one on grow the pie, and especially for people as well that are no data experts, right? That's always our mission as well, to kind of make it transparent also to people that don't look at data on a daily basis, and so that they also have a very good understanding of what's going on in the space. And also it helps the DAO to make better decisions based on, like, a couple of economic metrics as well. To re say, Okay, does it really matter to put that much money into, like, I don't know, some marketing initiatives, etc, other things that are coming up, and I think that will help a lot to to make this more transparent to people, as I said, like that, I don't that. Don't work with data on a daily basis. Let's say Matthias. If you have anything to add to that, or any questions, happy to answer them as well. There

was, I think that was, that's great. Maybe the only thing that I wanted to add was, like, what you mentioned, like, we will also have, like, some specific metrics for arbitrum, like, how much are these orbit chains paying back to arbitrum for settlement? Or, like, yeah. So this is something that we didn't see anywhere aggregated, and we will also add here, like on this bigger Stack View. Basically the Stack View that Toby had mentioned is, like. An overview of everything that's going on in the arbitrum ecosystem, and also, like very specific arbitrum metrics on like the health of like the overall ecosystem.

Thanks, devas, Thanks, Matt. Anyone has any questions? Please feel free to post them on the forum post see that there has been quite a lot of back and forth, so voting ends in two days. So please make sure to get your questions in and let the go to pi team know what durations to make before they go on chain.

Also, one more thing, we have another call on Thursday, scheduled at 3pm UTC. If you have any more questions, I'd like, I'll be there, happy to answer any more questions on that. Thank you. Thanks.

Okay. Moving on. Next up, we have another snapshot from the cura team that is to build a governance analytics dashboard. Anyone from the Curia team that's on the call now,

Hi guys, I'm here, happy to share.

Hey, go for it.

Okay. Thank you guys, thank you for having me again. So just we don't went through this last last call. So just to give you guys who didn't attend last time, just a quick overview of our proposals. So pretty much we aims to create, like a dashboard that provides a better insight into how governance functioning within Upton Dao so enhancing transparency, understanding voting behavior and identifying key areas for improvement there has been so far like some comments, discussions about the potential overlapping with the karma works on the delegates, incentive programs and on that. I wanted to clarify that what we planed to do our dashboard, we pretty much designed to complement, not to compete with commerce thoughts. Why? What? Karma did a great job in like tracking delegates performance, our dashboard would focus on a broader governance metrics, like the wording, power concentration, holder and delegate trends, proposal dynamics and like participation analysis. So this insights pretty much extend beyond just the for the delegates incentive program now offering a more like, granular view and like overall of the governance ecosystem within a patron. So together, these tools provide, like, a fuller picture, you know, enhancing the transparency and decision making within the DAO, which we think, is the underserved area of the governance data and the that's what's the other part about the integration and the accessibility of this data. I think JoJo raised a point that about making this compatible with platform like tally. We wanted to mention that we are fully open to that, and we already mentioned in the proposal, since we posted, that we will also provide an public API for the community use. So pretty much, our goal is to ensure the dashboard not only complements existing tool, but also adds an extra layer of transparency, tracking key governance metrics that support ongoing needs, and, you know, provide more identity, the source of truth for regarding a lot of these governance metrics. And, yeah, that's, it's pretty much, it's looking forward. You know, any any more feedback so like and questions. Happy to answer them.

Thank you very any questions for him.

Cool, voting ends in two days, so please review the proposal. It does not encast your votes. Post any questions in the forum, if you have any. So that is it for all the active votes. Now let's move on to notable discussions. So the first is by Rodrigo from the EF right? So this is to sponsor the Ethereum protocol attackathon. So Rodrigo, I believe you're on the call. Do you want to take on the stage and share a little bit more about this proposal. Please, sure. Hey,

everybody, Rodrigo, I've been at the Ethereum foundation for a couple of years, mainly running grants programs, and I am helping the protocol security research team organize this attack a thon in collaboration with immunify. I think the idea behind this came, you know, the EF has run a bug bounty program for years. I think in the recent past, we've seen a decline in the number of reports that. We receive in the last year, we received seven lows, seven mediums and two highs. So you know, the idea is that we really do need to kind of scale up the incentives and the attention around Ethereum security. So we have decided to work with immunify For this first audit contest, and plan to run similar audit contests in the future with other platforms and security partners. This one, as the first one, will cover a much larger scope than any future contests are. I think one of the big elements of this first one is education. I think currently, most of the clients do not have a ton of great documentation that helps SRS learn you know, how to look at vulnerabilities in their code bases. And so with immunify, we're going to create a ton of resources for security researchers to better understand the different clients and be able to look through the repositories identify vulnerabilities, and I think this would also have a ton of carryover for arbitrum, you know, I think particularly any vulnerabilities found in geth could have A ton of carryover. And so we're we're asking for sponsorship partners to help contribute to what we hope will be the largest audit contest in this space. And we've also included some marketing benefits that are at the bottom of the proposal. But from my perspective, you know, the real benefits are the positive externalities that will be created in terms of, you know, better security for Ethereum all EVM chains, as well as, you know, educational materials that will help onboard more security researchers. And hopefully, create a more secure Ethereum ecosystem.

Thanks, Rodrigo. Anyone has any questions you

cool. There have been quite a few good feedback points on the proposal, so please feel free to review them and ask any questions you can before this goes out on snapshot.

Yeah, yeah. There was a one question about paying out the bounties in ARB. I still am waiting for feedback on that, and we'll post an answer as soon as I have one.

Thank you. Cool. Let's move on if there are no questions. Next up is a proposal by C gov to temporarily extend the delegate incentive system anyone from the C gov team on the call that can talk through this. Let me just check the attendance real quick.

I don't see any contributors from seek gov, but essentially the seek gov, the delegate incentive program, term of six months is coming to an end. So this proposal is very simple. They're just extending. They're proposing to extend the program, and there will be no additional costs involved. As far as I know, the multi six still has enough funds to cover the extension, and they are looking to go live on snapshot on Thursday, which is tomorrow for me, yeah, or two days from now for you guys. So if you guys have any questions, please feel free to post them on the proposal thread. Let's move on. Next up is to enhance multi chain governance, to upgrade the rari governance token on armtrum. The rari team is supposed to be speaking, but I think they have some conflicts and will be only able to join the second half of the call. So maybe we can skip this and come back to it later, once they join. So next up, we have proposal from entropy on whether the DAO should be creating a conflict of interest and self folding policy. So Matt, or anyone from the entropy, do you guys want to talk through this real quick?

Yeah, I can take it real quick. Cliff. I. So yeah, this is a similar proposal to the shielded voting one that we put up a couple weeks ago. So just to reiterate, it's merely just looking to do an actual temperature check of like, what is the general opinion on adopting a formal self voting and conflict of interest policy, similar to the other proposal, we kind of outlined the pros and cons that we see, like the trade offs on each side. So sort of the pros. These are pretty standard policies in the traditional corporate world. So by not having these, we kind of risk arbitrum Dow looking unprofessional on the other side, enforcement. And there's a couple philosophical arguments to say we should not limit how delegates vote. So we kind of outlined those some proposal, and then we list a couple options ranging from like least restrictive, which is basically do nothing, to most restrictive, which would be a pretty strict self voting policy and conflict of interest policy. And then there's some options in between, such as just a standard disclosure policy, as well as outlining what we kind of frame is like a responsible voting for elections. This will go up to temperature check on Thursday, again, just really, just trying to gather opinions from delegates on like, how they view the issue. The specific language, I'll refine a little bit before moving to vote, because there was a couple comments about just looking for clarification on the policies. But also want to note that, like, Whatever option is chosen, like no formal guidelines or things will be like, implemented here, the plan is to, like, roll up and refine this language into a formal delegate code of conduct and future proposal that we'll put up later. And that's where we can kind of really dig into, like the details of the language there, because I know there will be a lot of discussion about what should what should be included there.

Thank thanks for it. So this is going to go on snapshot tomorrow for me, and then two days from now for most of you. So if you guys have any questions, please feel free to post it here. It seems like there have been quite a few good back and forth on this forum post. So I see that the rari team has joined. So let's just go back to their proposal on upgrading the rari governance token on arbitrum, Yana or Eugene. Do you guys want to give everyone a quick refresher on what you guys are proposing?

Yep, hi everyone. Thanks for patience. Our community call is exactly at the same time as yours, so we're mostly tasking here, and we literally just gave our delegates a rundown of what we're going to be talking about here. So yes, essentially, our token, our governance token, was deployed many years ago, right? And you know, with that, there were different needs the token embraced, vary model as such, it lives also on mainnet, which you know, is the governance hub for the rare Dow at the moment. So as such, every time it's it's supposed to be used for governance, people need to approve it for lock and then delegate it. And that action on mainnet is already very expensive. And then on top of that, voting on mainnet is expensive, so governance actually becomes, you know, the barrier in participating governance actually becomes quite high for people from certain geographies. And on top of that, it's something that also it doesn't provide the most optimal UX, for example, we use tally for on chain voting. You can delegate on tally with a vary model, so we always need to send people to our website and so on. So there's like, complexities to the model. It also has short comments. It doesn't have, you know, snapshotting and delegations, like, as I mentioned, like with this like we with this tally, like, you know, feature not being possible to integrate. So that was some pain that we've known existed in our community for quite some time. And the voices about, you know, upgrading our governance have been loud and clear for the past, you know, year that I've been with the foundation, what gave us like an extra boost is that we actually want to upgrade our governance to be multi chain. So in the upcoming months, we know that wormhole is launching their governance, and they will be using their messaging protocol to enable multi chain governance. One of the two products that are rari Dao governance, or the rari Dao governance is the rarible protocol, so there's variable protocol, and then there's rarity chain, which is arbitrum orbit. Actually the protocol is a multi chain product. So for the DAO to be effectively governing that protocol, a multi chain governance actually is an imperative. So with that, we actually do need to upgrade our token. So once we're going through that exercise, we actually want to take the occasion of moving our governance away from if you may not. So with that, we want that upgraded token to be living in the arbitrum ecosystem. So we want to deploy it on arbitrum One and on Mari chain, and with that, move our entire governance hub over to arbitrum ecosystem. So with that, once we deploy this new contract on arbitrum One and marry chain, we actually need to ensure that there's custom mapping in the arbitrum native bridge. Because what we want to do is tell people you can bridge your rally from mainnet and in the destination, which will be arbitrary, one and Larry chain, you actually already get that new token. No other action needed, right? For those who will want to stay on mainnet, they can always wrap it and use it for governance, but we really want people to be bringing their tokens from mainnet to the arbitrum ecosystem. So this custom pathway is actually something that only the DAO can authorize. We were talking with the foundation of the off chain team. This is not something that you know they can do independently. So it actually needs to be submitted as a proposal, and it needs to be executed as a proposal. So that's why we're here to be discussing this proposal. It's a technical one, it's a constitutional one, so it will require the 5% trade hold to meet quorum. So we want to make sure that, you know, everybody feels like they understand the proposal. If there are any questions, we can discuss them. And you know, we just want to make sure that, you know, there's a sufficient turnout for the vote so like, if anything is holding anybody back, we're happy to be going through that the comments that we've seen on the proposal so far were mainly around security concern and audit. So we know that there is a body that helps the arbitrum Dao assess security risk, and that openseapple And is a designated partner for do audits. So the question here is like, do we need to go through that audit, or is just their general level of assessment sufficient? Yes. Chris,

yeah, just to fill up on that, like this body that you mentioned is ARDC, and opens upon the security member of the ARDC, however, we are strictly not doing audits. The body for audits is ADPC, which provides some like subsidies for audit. So if you want to get an audit from the ADPC whitelisted security like, like auditor, then, then maybe you would be able to, you know, get a subsidy for this audit. However, through ARDC, what we've been doing in the past is we were simply providing some kind of an approval, like statement that, yes, the DAO can implement such a change. It's not an audit. So you don't get a certificate that your code is audited, but basically, open the plane says to the DAO that, hey, if you vote on it, then Save however. Like I we already asked opensapple in to look into your proposal, so we already talked them to to pick it up. I'm not sure if, like, I don't know yet if it will be possible to cover it, especially that, like, the future of ARDC is kind of unknown at this point, but like, we are already handling it from this perspective,

awesome. Yeah. Thank you so much. We're taking your lead here. So any kind of like diligence that needs to be done to make sure that, you know, the actual like, you know, requirement for the change is in line with what is, you know, tolerable and approved and reviewed. So happy to be providing whatever is needed here.

I guess on our end, the foundation and off chain labs are actively looking into the executable code here as well as the potential security risks, and we will post our findings directly on the forum once we get to a good conclusion. I

cool any questions for Yana and Eugene from the rari team, again,

this is going to be a constitutional proposal, so down the line, we'll probably need a lot of you guys to come forth with your votes. Cool. All right, let's move forward. Thanks. Rari team. So we've talked about this conflict of interest. I've actually pinged thistle, who is the author of the arbitrum culture Council, to join the call, but I don't see him. Slash them on the attendee list. So I'm just going to give a quick TLDR. So essentially, this is an RFC to propose the creation of a culture Council in arbitrum. And the rationale is to support and collaborate with arbitrum native infrastructure to drive the development of a vibrant meme and culture point ecosystem. It also hopes to leverage the attention flywheel of a thriving meme and culture coin ecosystem to spread the awareness of arbitrum as a whole, and looks to establish an organic community of engaged arbitrum supporters across social media and on chain to accelerate our drums overall growth. So the proposal is seeking a total of $266,000 worth of ARB for six months, and $200,000 of that is going to go towards grants to incentivize the use of meme phi. So this proposal has gotten some feedback so far. Not enough. So if you have the time, please review this post and leave your thoughts. Let's move on next up. I'm not sure whether Sid or the branch is on the call, but there is step two steering committee post that they release. So Sid, go for it.

Yep. Yeah. Cheers, Thanks, Kristen, yeah. So just wanted to quickly highlight that devansh and I and paper Imperium from GFX labs are working on, you know, the future of both the STEP program on arbitrum, but also the broader RWA strategy for arbitrum. So I think Kristin, actually, if you can scroll down, there's a graphic that you can highlight that, yeah, that one, if you can, just like, zoom into it, that's kind of the overall, overall view of how we're thinking about this. There's quite a lot of, you know, different topics and that we need to do more work on in order to be able to, you know, incorporate feedback from the the first step program identify, you know, the different types of you know, assets that we potentially want to engage with in the in the second iteration of step. And you know things like productively deploying purchase step assets. You know, after identifying use cases for Rs across defi, assess the priority of the program in terms of ecosystem growth versus Treasury diversification, etc. So, you know, there's quite a lot of topics that we need to, you know, put some work into. And, you know, I get some more context on before we will comprehensively define, you know, what the second iteration of step would look like, what future programs of step could actually look like. And you know, also identify the broader ecosystem. Growth Strategy for RWA is on arbitrum, of which, you know, we're playing a small part right now by leading the RWA innovation grants program. But also, you know that needs to coalesce into something more broad and wide ranging and, you know, all encompassing. So at this point, you know, we decided to form a steering committee, which, which, you know, we take the lead on staffing. We'll identify the core topics that we want to work on, allocate the different individuals we want to work on those topics, and the outputs that we want, and all of those outputs, outputs will feed into, you know, the plan for step two, the plan for future step programs, and the broader arbitrum RWA strategy, incorporating ecosystem growth initiatives as well, so that, you know, we've aligned, you know, with the community on This already by, you know, having, we actually just had the first steering committee call this afternoon, and you know, we've engaged with with folks from, you know, all across the space who expressed an interest. And, yeah, just wanted to highlight that, you know, we're thinking about these topics. RWS is super important, both in arbitrum and beyond. And you know, we need to make sure that arbitrum takes the lead and maintains it within this

thanks. Sid, quick question for me, I know that you guys launched the RW grants program. Yeah, thank ARB. Does this have any tie ins or affiliations with step, yeah,

so that one, the rWg, is meant to be complimentary to step. So we were funding, so while step was only about, you know, primarily about Treasury diversification. So the arbitrary Treasury itself investing, you know, in RWs, like T bills, the rwig was meant to kick start. You know, the RWA vertical itself an arbitrum from an ecosystem growth perspective, and it was only a, you know, a pilot program. Obviously, you know, we were, we've been in touch with diwash since the very beginning of this. So, you know, we've been pretty closely looped in with those topics. And now we think that, what with the. You know, the pilot program of the RWA innovation grants coming close to an end. We think it's time to, you know, actually have a broader strategy that incorporates both ecosystem growth and Treasury diversification as topics for our W is on, on arbitrum. So yeah, in a nutshell, it's, it's complimentary at this stage as well, and over time, it'll all be part of a broader strategy for the DAO

got it thanks. And there are actually two live proposals from kataki and avant garde finance on treasury management as well. So how does this kind of all

side? So the treasury management aspect that karpi and avant garde are proposing is more around liquid, deeper treasury management. It doesn't necessarily touch Rw is at this point in time and again. Like, this is all complimentary, right? Like we're not, we're not saying that we're going to manage a treasury, or, you know, identify that, you know, this is a way of managing the entirety of amateur treasury. It's more in lockstep with them to understand, you know, that that component of the treasury management about investing in in RWs, from a treasury perspective, what they proposed is, is more, as I understand it, on the side of managing, you know, of deploying into active defi opportunities, which is separate and like the type of assets that we would invest in, potentially investing, I would say, because no one's making any decisions at this point in time, would be, you know, of a different profile, risk profile, return profile, you know, compared to those strategies that They will be potentially implementing. Got it. Thanks

for clarifying. Anyone has any questions for Sid, not saying you let's move on. So we've gone through notable discussions and all the proposals. Now there are some general updates. So I want to bring on Rika from four four Dao as well as on the onboarding working group, to share a little bit more about their final report on the onboarding pilot program. So Rika, are you on the call? Yep. Thank you. Go for it. Hi

everyone. Yes. I just wanted to quickly share some brief updates from the onboarding working group, just the interest of time. Wanted to share some of the key insights. You can read the entire report on the forum. So basically, we created a set of fellowships, and the intention was to help onboard people into arbitrum Dao, because, as you all know, it is quite difficult now to to navigate the DAO and to can contribute meaningfully. So we were pretty hands off, and we decided that each of the fellowships would kind of go off on their own to figure out what is a problem that the DAO needs to solve, and we realized that actually this is quite a difficult challenge, and the participants needed some more hands on assistance to really figure out what exactly is, is the doubt problem? How are others? Are already trying to solve this, etc. So as we think about the next phase of this program, we're going to slightly redesign it, and we're going to make some improvements to it. So basically, we want to be focusing more on the educational piece of it. We want to hold workshops. We want to bring in mentors, and so we're going to be working with SMEs within the DAO to really help, to to

to to

really, yeah, so bring On SMEs to help with the facilitation of of workshops and mentorships. With that said, we are looking for some new people to potentially join the working group. So if you have any kind of onboarding experience, or if this is interesting to you, you can reach out to me. I'll post my telegram into the chat. So, you know, send me a message.

Appreciate it. Rica. So this is a very, very comprehensive report. I would encourage everyone to have a look through it. Provide comments, onboarding, something. That the DAO really needs to work on, in my personal opinion. So yeah, thank you for working on this. JB, go ahead.

Thank you so much for doing this. Rika, I tried to go to the DevRel call yesterday and saw it wasn't really running. Are these, these calls are still on the calendar, but are they going to be continuing in the near term, or Are you pausing to regroup? Yeah,

sorry about that. Someone else mentioned that also because we're in this trend transition phase. So we completed the pilot, and then we're about to enter into into the next phase, but in this transition phase now, yeah, some of the calls are not happening, so apologies for that. We need to be sure to take those off.

No worries. Thank you.

Cool. Thanks. Rika, so next up, I have a quick update to share from the foundations front. So we previously posted two separate snapshots to gage the DAO sentiment on whether the foundation would have its support to request for some funds from the eth treasury to run the very first bow validator. So there are two different asks. The first is to run the bond, the assertion bond, and that would mean an ask of 3600 Eth and 555 plus 79 eth for one challenge. And then the second ask is the operational side, and that is to pay out service fees to validators, as well as to refund our gas costs. That will be a combination of 500 plus 400 eth. So we have all the details on this forum post. It is updated, and we are working on a tele draft at the moment, so please do expect this proposal to hit the tally UI, probably next week, because we are still finalizing out some small details. And you have any other questions on this ask, please feel free to post it on this forum post, and we will answer them in a quick fashion. And then I have two other updates. So the the next one is that we have the security council elections for Cohort One that is going to be starting in a month's time, September 15, to be exact, right? So we will be pushing out a lot of comms, and September 15 is when new nominees can actually put in their profiles on tally, indicating that they like to run for the Security Council elections. And then for a week, people can actually put up their profiles. And then the process will actually effectively start a week from then, on September 22 so that's when you know, people can actually start to vote on which nominees to push through to the next round. So in order to go through, you need at least 0.5% of all votes apply to be to. You need to garner that amount of votes. And then the election process follows the previous two where there will be one round of elections, and then it goes through compliance. So all the eligible candidates will go through compliance with the foundation, and then there will be a second round of elections, and then the top six will be elected into the Security Council for one year term. So similar to the past elections, we will be pushing out a lot of comms, some AMS as well, just to get the DAO comfortable with all the nominees and ask them as many questions as possible. So do keep a lookout for that. We are a month away. So yeah, we will definitely be pushing out a lot of awareness comms leading up to the Security Council elections. And my last update is actually on the ADPC. So Sid, do you want to jump in with a with the

update? Yeah, cool. Thanks. Clifton again, yeah, just a quick update. So we're in the final stages of whitelisting the security service providers that responded to the RFPs that we put out in June. And so that that part is is going pretty well, and then we are also so and just as an addition to that, we should have the subsidy fund running by next month, based on, you know, us finishing off this white listing process. And the second part of that is that we are coming up to the end of the adbc tenure in a week's time, and we're going to be publishing an extension proposal on the forum pretty soon. We've gone through multiple drafting and review cycles of that and where we were just sharing with a few delegates for their initial feedback thoughts, and we'll be publishing it to the forum. Uh, pretty soon. So yeah, just you know, if anyone's waiting with bated breath, keep your eyes open that. Thanks.

Thanks. Sid, since we're on the topic of extension, I do know that the ARDC term is coming to an end as well. Sorry to put anyone from the ARDC on the spot. But if you have any thoughts that you'd like to chime in. Please feel free to jump in. If not, we can leave that for the next call. Oh, Chris, go ahead.

Yeah. So this term is coming to an end. Not sure the multisig for ARDC is already empty, but we kind of collectively decided to continue working until the end of the term. Joseph, who is the original proposer of ARDC, is working on the actually, he just published, or is going to publish the follow up proposal. So I don't know the details yet. I didn't read it, but I know that the follow up proposal is coming, so we can cover it next week. Probably

Okay, sounds good. I guess, since we still have nine minutes, I do want to share some administrative updates on the forum. So over the weekend, we got a ton of spam that came in, and I had to manually, you know, delete a lot of these comments. So for the time being, we have, actually, yeah, it's mini Chris as well. But for the time being, we have actually made all the posts for the proposals category, the DAO grants programs category, the general category, as well as the governance category to go into a queue where a couple of us will actually be reviewing to make sure that it's not spam before it goes live on the forum. As per usual, we will not be gatekeepers, per se, unless it contains any malicious links or there is outright misrepresentation of information, and if it's not spam. So yeah, I just want to give everyone an update on that front Alex, chime in.

Oh, this is not on the spam, but just to give an update on one more proposal that we do have coming onto the forum is the STIP bridge. OPEX costs basically when, when the operational, when the STIP bridge passed, we allocated an extra 100k ARP to make sure that everyone who did the work got paid. This included advisors, included the program manager, the proposal writer, and the and the multisig, and basically everyone has done all the work it hasn't gotten paid. I unfortunately got sick over the past 10 days and haven't been able to push out proposal, but it is coming out, and you guys will be able to see all the information the the long and short of it is, when the proposal was passed, they, like a lot of people, are kind of getting underpaid because of the price drop in ARB compared to what they would have gotten when the proposal came out, and compared to what they might have gotten at like, other points. So a similar problem is we're seeing kind of across other proposals. But look forward to that, to that work, and you'll see how amazing of a job the advisors have done and the program manager have done overall. So please be on the lookout for that.

Thanks for the heads up. All right. Anyone else has any items to bring up?

One more thing about that is the funds have already been like paid by the Treasury. They're sitting in the LTI, PP, multi SIG right now, so the DAO won't have to, like, release any more funds. They're just sitting there waiting to be like, dispersed once the DAO approves them.

Thank you.

All right, if no one else has any other topics to raise, I'll give you guys back six minutes, even though it's not a lot. Have a great rest of your week, everyone. I will be posting a recording of this session once I have it ready, and I will see you guys two weeks from now. Thanks, everyone. See ya. Thanks. I

guess. Clark,

yeah. Before you pop off, I am curious, as someone who's doing developer stuff in the ARB ecosystem, if you do have any suggestions of where to go for DevRel support and collaboration,

for sure, maybe we can take this offline, okay? For sure. Thank you. Thank you. Let me drop my telegram real quick before you hop off. All

right, feel free to ping me, and then I can point you in the right direction.

All right, thanks all have a good one. Bye.