This proposal would claim the Arbitrum airdrop allocated to the Hop timelock address, send that ARB to a new community multisig, and delegate it to a new ambassador multisig. This proposal does not prevent the community multisig from spending the tokens in the way the community sees fit, but would allow Hop to more effectively represent itself in the Arbitrum community in the meantime.
Moving these funds to a community multisig gives the DAO more flexibility in their use. Furthermore, delegating them to a multisig managed by Hop’s Arbitrum ambassadors allows Hop to use the reserves to better advocate for itself within an important partner protocol’s community.
Hop Labs claims the tokens allocated to the Arbitrum timelock address
Two new multisigs are created with coordination from the Hop team and/or the existing multisig signers: one for the community treasury, and another for the Arbitrum ambassadors
The community multisig signers will be determined through community discussion, using either existing multisig signers or new volunteers
The community multisig is bound to act in accordance with decisions made through Snapshot vote only and is prohibited from making independent decisions on the use of these funds
Hop Labs sends the ARB claimed to the new community multisig address
The community multisig delegates these funds to the new ambassador multisig address, with each of the new Arbitrum ambassadors added to it
I would vote For this proposal.
Is there a central location where the community can track which multi-sig addresses are used for what?
Perhaps update the discord Resources or a central thread?
Never-mind, just seen List of important addresses
though perhaps it warrants a pinning so it doesn’t get buried?
Yeah I think that’s currently the best place. I don’t think I have permission but maybe @cwhinfrey can help us pin it somewhere if he thinks so too
This is a good idea. I don’t see why we would not want to do it.
Would it not be better to use one of the already created Community Multisigs for holding the ARB? I imagine it would be easier to manage all funds/delegations if they were concentrated at one place. On the other hand, there is indeed a dedicated different Optimism community multisig (as seen in the Important Links post), and creating an Arbitrum one would fall in line with the existing structure.
I mention this since it may become bureaucratic down the road to keep track of all multisigs and signers, especially if they are different on each one.
The new multisig is necessary because the airdrop is claimable by an alias of the timelock and I don’t believe we have a community multisig like we do on Optimism. I could be wrong about this though.
It definitely could make sense to have everything if one spot as well, but there’s a few considerations.
Like you mentioned, we already have a distinction between community multisig signers and ambassadors for Optimism. I think makes sense given the different nature of responsibility (signers being more custodial and ambassadors being more active).
The ambassadors didn’t sign up to do this work, so it could be unfair to add additional responsibilities at this point. The multisig signers, by contrast, did sign up for this and given new elections are happening soon it gives signers the opportunity to choose whether or not this additional workload is worth it to them. The argument could also be made for raising the amount of compensation.
Concentrating all the funds and delegations would be centralizing. It would make a handful of people even more powerful, create less room for new people to get involved, and reduce a check on the ambassadors (whereby the community multisig could theoretically delegate to a different address if the ambassador wallet is ever compromised).
I see the benefit in streamlining and reducing the overhead of managing a number of different accounts, but I think the cost is worth it in the interest of decentralization and separation of concerns. I also think references like the post you mentioned can help address some of the challenges associated with managing the different addresses.
I would be for this. My only concern would be the ambassador multi-sig only being 2/2. I should clarify, my concern isn’t with the ambassadors themselves as I trust them as good actors, but more along the lines of outside parties that could target either signer. Or a scenario where one signer becomes incapacitated in their duties for causes beyond their control.
All said, given the scope of the project and lack of third applicant, it’s a balance between complexity and streamlining. I think there isn’t much that can be done… My best thought is having someone from the elected community multi-sig signers join making it a 2/3 multisig. This would allow the 2 ambassadors to still perform their duties without ever needing reliance on a 3rd vote, but it would then allow for the community signer to step in an emergency situation. Otherwise, the community signer wouldn’t need to be involved at all and would not be expected to act.
I think your first block is a good reason for keeping the distinction between multisig signer and ambassador positions like I was discussing with Olimpio.
To your second point, it could definitely a good idea to have another person on the ambassador multisig just in case if we were to combine the two roles. As I see it though, the current thinking is that we would just have the existing multisig signers manage this new community address and if there’s any objections we can update compensation or allow new nominations at the next election (anticipating not a lot of work and activity on the new Arbitrum community address in the interim). This would also create both a check on the ambassador address and allow for updating it if one of the two ambassadors can’t vote anymore.
Unless there are any objections or additional feedback, this should move to a vote shortly as Arbitrum is also progressing their proposals soon. I think we will plan to keep multisig signers separate from the ambassador program, using the existing multisig signers for the new Arbitrum address. Importantly, this vote will also create the new Optimism community address as well.
This is now up for a temperature check:Snapshot. Some elements of this are technically off-chain and some are on-chain. So after the temp check passes we can do the off-chain elements and then proceed to tally for the on-chain component.
I’m voting yes. We need this for the ambassador programs to become more meaningful.
Voting yes for the same reason.
Voting yes as this is imperative for the ambassador program to function
Voted yes on this proposal
I voted For this proposal.
I have voted yes for this