safe was awarded ARB tokens for participating in decentralized governance on the Arbitrum chain. Here I would like to share some of my thoughts and suggestions,
First, the ARB token is the Arbitrum Foundation’s incentive to participate in on-chain governance. The value of these tokens depends on the contribution and participation on the chain, so these tokens should be distributed reasonably to encourage more people to participate in the governance and development of the chain.
To achieve this goal, I propose to distribute ARB tokens to the following categories of users:
Team involved in governance: In order to ensure that the governance process on the chain is fair, transparent and efficient, we need a professional team to be responsible for supervising and managing the decisions on the chain. Therefore, we distribute ARB tokens to teams participating in governance to encourage them to make more contributions to the governance of the chain.
Multi-signature users: Multi-signature users on the Arbitrum chain are usually those who are interested in the governance process on the chain. contribution. Therefore, ARB tokens are allocated to multi-signature users to incentivize them to participate more in the governance and development of the chain.
I would like to emphasize that allocating ARB tokens is a complex issue that requires consideration of multiple factors. For example, more tokens should be allocated to users who contribute more to the on-chain governance process than to users who own more tokens. Additionally, the value of ARB tokens should also be taken into account to ensure that the tokens allocated to users meet their needs and provide them with sufficient rewards.
In short, it is hoped that ARB tokens can be distributed to users on the Arbitrum chain through a reasonable distribution method to encourage more people to participate in the governance and development of the chain.
Therefore, we distribute ARB tokens to teams participating in governance to encourage them to make more contributions to the governance of the chain.
Participating in what kind of governance and for what protocol exactly? How do we measure this?
Multi-signature users: Multi-signature users on the Arbitrum chain are usually those who are interested in the governance process on the chain. contribution. Therefore, ARB tokens are allocated to multi-signature users to incentivize them to participate more in the governance and development of the chain.
Again, how would you measure the allocation? Also, do you mean only multi-sigs? Or Safe accounts in general? I’m not the biggest fan of putting a bias on multi-sig users. I believe single-sig users can be interested in governance also.
Specifically this section:
" 3. Use of treasury is limited to achieving SafeDAO goals
The usage of any assets associated with the SafeDAO treasury is credibly linked to one or more of the SafeDAO goals outlined in the SafeDAO Constitution."
In general, governance refers to the processes and decisions that determine the direction and management of a system or organization.
To measure participation in chain governance, the number of votes, number of proposals submitted, and participation in other governance processes need to be tracked. These metrics can be used for the level of contribution to on-chain governance, and accordingly the amount of ARB tokens allocated to the team.
What I mean is that multi-signature users are allocated proportionally, because the advantages of multi-signature wallets over single-signature wallets are obvious.
Why distribute these tokens at all? Why not use them for governance rights over Arbitrum?
Personally I’d rather see SafeDAO delegate these tokens to individuals or groups who align with SafeDAO values to ensure that Safe is well-represented within Arbitrum governance.
This idea makes sense. SafeDAO can vote to assign ARB to existing Safe delegates that are active and interested to vote on behalf of SafeDAO in the Arbitrum DAO.
I second @links and @adamhurwitz.eth here. It’s in the best interest of SAFE DAO to have it’s long term interests represented. Afaik, it’s not possible to split delegation to multiple addresses from a single address, if the community wants to follow this approach, then ARB has to be split manually between several addresses and delegated individually. We are active in ARB Governance as @daostewards and happy to represent the interests of SAFE DAO as well.
Alternatively, the DAO can form it’s own metagovernance group to participate in other DAOs on it’s behalf. Coming to consensus and signing voting TX on time is not an easy lift, this would divert resources away from the core mission of the DAO, thus i would not recommend this appraoch.
Another option to reduce complexity in the short-term is for the Safe Ecosystem Foundation (SEF) to start off voting on behalf of Safe in the Arbitrum DAO, and publicly sharing their decisions.
Then, if there are delegates that are particularly active in both Safe and Arbitrum’s DAOs there could be a vote to have them represent SafeDAO in Arbitrum.
Hey there! I just wanted to say a quick congrats to SafeDAO on getting that grant. That’s awesome news! I’m all for the idea of rewarding real users, and giving out ARB tokens to active participants is a great way to do that.
It’s a smart approach that incentivizes continued engagement and recognizes the valuable contributions of users. To keep the community engaged and the ecosystem thriving, it’s key to keep things fair and transparent, involve people in decision-making, and listen to feedback.
I think Arb token should be used to boost the confidence and sustainability of the safe Ecosystem.
I’d rather see something more interesting. Use the ARB tokens to promote the Arbitrum ecosystem and the usage of Safe wallets. Allow all Arbitrum Safes to claim back gas costs or a portion thereof in Arbitrum tokens.
We wouldn’t need to use the whole allocation this way, but it might be good for both current users and to bring in new users. After eip4844 lowers gas costs it might even be an incentive pool that could last a long time.
Just using them for votes is too boring. Voting is the least interesting thing that tokens do. And I don’t think people are more special or deserving because they vote more often. Voting just for the sake of voting without knowledge or conviction is not adding any value. So I don’t think we should award vote participation over on chain history as it increases the risk of political capture. We assume that governance participation is protocol aligned, but I can vote and discuss all day without being an active user on chain, without securing real value, and with only my own interests in mind. I could be an active governance participant with the sole purpose of disrupting the function of the governance system. Politics without execution is another means of value extraction from the protocol.
Wherever there is a question of value/power I think we should strive to take no action that requires us to decide the value of one user against another. This is why eip1559 burns Eth instead of paying any particular validator or public goods fund. There is no unbiased choice, so we must choose to benefit everyone or no one