I don’t agree with the chosen methodology to get consent from the DAO to decide this. As pointed out previously, the non-inclusion of other strategies in this recommendation is weird, merging everything in the same vote is weird, choosing to use ranked choice voting at the last minute is weird. Just too weird overall really. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tmc-s-proposed-allocations/28522/64?u=paulofonseca

I don’t agree with internalizing into the Arbitrum Foundation, a job that the DAO was previously doing. Even when the service providers doing that job for the DAO were taking too long, wasting resources, denying audit subsidies to worthy projects, porting the whole program to competing ecosystems, etc. I don’t condone the way the ADPC acted in their past 2 terms, but I also don’t think internalizing this job into the Foundation is the right approach. What I think we need is an Arbitrum DAO run, dedicated Audit Subsidy program, that would run continuously and would report their actions to the DAO with the utmost transparency possible. And executed by new and fresh service providers that are exclusive to Arbitrum. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/73?u=paulofonseca

I have no idea of the risks this upgrade will entail without seeing the results of an independent audit to the smart contract code. And I also think the governance process for this proposal has not been followed in the best way it could. I think the Arbitrum DAO delegates should be asked to vote, even on a temperature check, in as much of a fully fleshed out proposal, as possible. This proposal is not ready to be voted on by delegates, in my opinion, in the sense that if delegates vote against in this temp check, will the work on this upgrade stop? No, it won’t. So I don’t understand why delegates are being asked to vote on this proposal, at this point. After the code is complete and the audits are done, then it makes sense for delegates to decide on the risk vs. reward of upgrading the Arbitrum One and Nova contracts, with this proposal. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/30?u=paulofonseca

overall I think it is better to fund these projects (which are indeed high quality) than not to fund them. But, as per my previous offchain vote, I really don’t agree with the approach that was followed by the proposers here, as I think the DAO should have done another totally independent season of this grant program instead of an extension that asked almost double the money than initially aproved, mostly so that other high quality projects could apply as well and compete for the funds. The approach that was followed by @Entropy here, where they published a public proposal to the DAO with the specific projects that would be funded and by how much, put the DAO and its delegates in a kind of hostage situation, where if the DAO would have decided not to fund this extension, Arbitrum DAO would be seen as not welcoming to these builders that applied to the program and were expecting the funding. I feel like our delegates hand was forced into approving this proposal, and I must say that hereby I cast my onchain FOR vote a little bit… in protest. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-to-increase-the-stylus-sprint-committee-s-budget/28312/83?u=paulofonseca

the monetary ask is not that big for the return this can have, the DAO needs regular events like this to attract good and honest founders into Arbitrum, the Farstar team is competent and has done this before at the highest level, and the timeline proposed seems doable. Also, I believe the Events Budget 2025 is exactly the avenue that should fund this type of proposal, and as a reminder for my fellow distinguished delegates that are worried about spending the Events Budget 2025, I would like to remind them that that budget and committee was funded through onchain vote more than 3 months ago, with $1.5M USD in total to be spend, and at the moment it has only spent $55,800 USD for ETH Bucharest 2025. Which means that, excluding the $400K USD that were already reserved for the Arbitrum Foundation this year and that are going to be used fully for ETH Denver in the next couple weeks, in the last quarter, the DAO has only spend 5.05% of this annual events budget ($1.5M in total - $400K for the AF = $1.1M remaining and therefore the $55.8K allocated to ETH Bucharest is 5.05% of 1.1M). And I’m not arguing that we should be voting For in every proposal that comes to the DAO trying to get funded through that budget, but I believe we should be more worried about the fact that almost no service provider comes forward and tries to propose an event or series of events that use that budget. That was the original intention of the 2025 Events Budget, and at this rate, is not being fulfilled at all. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/46?u=paulofonseca

this is not the right way to do this. This proposal was rushed, the proposer didn't incorporate feedback from the delegates, and I overall don't agree with increasing the budget to almost double, without opening applications for other projects to apply as well. As I recommended before, we should invest heavily in stylus, and the right move, in my opinion, is to double down on the program and make a second season of it, with maybe even more budget than the first. But doing it like this is not okay. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-to-increase-the-stylus-sprint-committee-s-budget/28312/73?u=paulofonseca

all things considered, I think there’s more pros than cons (barely) and the DAO needs an active grant program (up to $50k) right now. There’s a bunch of details I don’t agree with this is proposal to be honest, but all in all, it gets my For vote. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/137?u=paulofonseca

it makes no sense to leave this much ETH, getting stale, in the L1 timelock. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/5?u=paulofonseca