Arbitrum controversial proposals under the head of governance representative's attitude is what?

This past weekend was a nightmare for Arbitrum Foundation. The cause of the incident was that Arbitrum Foundation transferred and allocated ARB tokens and transferred 750 million ARBs to the "administrative budget wallet" when the AIP-1 proposal had not been passed. In addition, the data on the chain shows that Arbitrum Foundation sent 50 million ARBs to Wintermute when the tokens were opened for trading, 40 million of which were used for market making, and another 10 million were converted to fiat currency to cover operating costs. And none of this was done with community consent.

In response to community skepticism, the foundation said that AIP-1 is not a grant "request," but a request for community "approval." Part of the ARB transfer and use is a decision that the foundation has already made, and the proposal is not a plea to the community for an action,"The purpose of AIP-1 is to inform the community of all the decisions that have been made in advance."

Such a response succeeded in setting off anger in the community, with many questioning the "governance" meaning of such a proposal. The community governance representatives of the top four Arbitrum companies unanimously voted against the proposal and demanded that the governance process be improved. How the community has debated AIP-1, BlockBeats has compiled several representative views as follows.

TreasureDAO

As the largest governance representative of Arbitrum ecology, TreasureDAO, a decentralized game ecosystem, points out that there are problems in AIP-1 such as incomplete discussion of grant plans, opaque process and inadequate explanation, and has requested Arbitrum to resubmit a proposal. The new proposal needs to spell out more clearly the scope of the earmark program and break up the AIP-1 proposal.

It is worth pointing out that although there is TreasureDAO, a governance representative, which voted against AIP-1, karel vuong, a joint venture of TreasureDAO, has expressed some understanding of Arbitrum and deep thinking about this event on its social platform. It said that Arbitrum has some problems in the process of Token issuance and decentralization, such as unclear document expression and poor community communication. But given the complexity of the process, the current problems are understandable.

In addition, karel vuong says,Although the AIP-1 proposal is far from perfect, the Arbitrum Foundation intended from the outset to achieve a greater degree of decentralization than its peers, believing that Arbitrum will always operate for the benefit of the entire ecosystem.

Encrypt KOL olimpio

olimpio, the community's second largest governance representative, voted against the proposal at the first discussion of the matter and spoke out. olimpio points out,The foundation's control of 7.5% of the Token is not uniqueThe Starknet Foundation had indicated it would take control of 10 percent of the tokens and the Optimism Foundation held 5.4 percent of the tokens of the agreement.

The difference is,The Starknet Foundation and the Optimism Foundation make it clear what the foundation plans to do with its tokens prior to the launch. And Arbitrum is through the AIP-1 proposal form to "confirm" the allocation. Arbitrum Foundation can't take it for granted that ARB Foundation gets 7% tokens because STRK and OP communities have no say in Token distribution.

ChainLinkGod

Chainlink Community Ambassador ChainLinkGod is Arbitrum's fourth largest governance representative. In the governance forum, it made very constructive suggestions on the AIP-1 proposal, including improving the transparency of the administrative budget wallet, splitting the comprehensive proposal into multiple separate proposals and lowering the minimum threshold for proposal creation (Only four representatives have reached the 5 million ARB proposal creation threshold). ChainLinkGod, meanwhile, has reservations about retroactive voting on the transfer of 750 million tokens, which could cause even greater governance confusion.

Although the current community for Arbitrum Foundation transfer Token enigma operation of the opposition wave is great, butCommunity representatives generally expressed no concern that the team would dump tokens on a large scale. The latest news is that the RIP-1 proposal has received 82.88% of the votes against it, and the rejection of the proposal seems certain. The Arbitrum team also promised this morning to revamp the proposal this week, as well as provide the Ecosystem Development Fund with background information on how the money will be spent and a "transparency report" based on the foundation's budget. Star Layer2 Project Arbitrum governance events developments BlockBeats will continue to follow.

欢迎加入律动 BlockBeats 官方社群：

Telegram 订阅群：https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram 交流群：https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter 官方账号：https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia