A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Empowering Early Contributors: The difference between the community Arbiter Proposal 2.0 and 1.0 | ||||||||||||||
2 | Difference comparison | 2.0 Proposal | Summary/Overview | 1.0 Proposal | |||||||||||
3 | Why did the Arbiters initiate this proposal? | Detailed explanation | After the Arbitrum DAO was established, there was a large-scale airdrop for the Arbitrum network early adopters and ecosystem projects. However, Arbiters did not receive airdrop retroactive rewards after the establishment of the Arbitrum DAO. Arbiters, as an important early contributor to the Arbitrum ecosystem, have not been given any right to speak and vote in the development of the Arbitrum DAO. | not fully explained | |||||||||||
4 | Introduction and background information of the abiter | Detailed introduction and explanation | the Arbitrum Discord and some Arbitrum local communities needed help with active moderation and community engagement. The arbiter role is established by the Arbitrum team and given to people who are early contributors who have made outstanding contributions to the Arbitrum community. | not fully explained | |||||||||||
5 | Retroactive reward amount | 125K ARB | 500K ARB | ||||||||||||
6 | Arbiter did not receive any arb airdrop rewards | Add explanation | After the Arbitrum DAO was established, there was a large-scale airdrop for the Arbitrum network early adopters and ecosystem projects. However, Arbiters did not receive airdrop retroactive rewards after the establishment of the Arbitrum DAO. | No explanation | |||||||||||
7 | Why Proposal 2.0 is a one-time retroactive reward, not sustainable why doesn’t this 2.0 proposal have a plan for future Arbiter contributions and a sustainable reward framework? | Detailed explanation | arbiter are only seeking a one-time retroactive reward from the Arbitrum DAO for the arbiter's contributions over the past 2+ years. The Arbitrum team has made it clear that arbiter have been deprecated. the Arbitrum Foundation has already hired its own review/client support team and launched an ambassador program. so we are unable to assess and plan for Arbiter's future contributions at this time. Deprecated arbiters are not able to explore a sustainable compensation plan incentive Members of the Arbitrum Foundation also made it clear: the proposal in discussion is for a retroactive reward and not a future or ongoing one, so this fact wouldn’t be too valuable I don’t think. | No explanation | |||||||||||
8 | Reasons and breakdown of retroactive award amounts | Detailed explanation, comparison, and detailed listing | Detailed description and breakdown of arbiter's application for retroactive rewards https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rJbiyN2vWNhrvKL7oYy4OTtHGGpH_ab8/edit#gid=772819773 | Vague introduction | |||||||||||
9 | Establishment of a transparent framework for retroactive rewards and systematic approach to evaluation | Try establishing from multiple angles. But all were unsuccessful. Detailed arguments and explanations | arbiter has tried many times to summarize the framework and system methods for retrospective evaluation. But there are too many types of contributions involved, and the 2.0 proposal is a retroactive reward before the Arbitrum airdrop. The 2.0 proposal demonstrates and explains from multiple angles that it is impossible to use one framework and systematic method to make all retrospective evaluations. | No detailed description | |||||||||||
10 | Explanation of the differences in the contribution of arbiters | Detailed explanation | Arbiters come from different countries, with different backgrounds and environments. the huge needs of Chinese users. It is led by Arbitrum team member Nina (head of Asia Pacific region), and there is a separate Arbitrum Discord Chinese channel. For arbiters outside the Chinese community, it is more difficult to contribute. | No explanation | |||||||||||
11 | The arbiter as a whole proposed the 2.0 proposal and all members agreed to share the retroactive rewards equally | Detailed explanation | arbiter takes into account that many contributions are not saved. There is diversity and complexity in the categories or content of contributions. arbiter as a whole more influential | No detailed explanation | |||||||||||
12 | List of Arbiters' partial contributions | Structural sorting and summary of contribution categories. Addition of supporting materials such as sample links and screenshots | List of Arbiters' partial contributions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=33682519 | Contribution categories lack structure and are not segmented. There are few supporting materials such as sample links and screenshots and lack of representativeness. | |||||||||||
13 | arbiter personal information and individual contribution example list | Add to | arbiter individual contribution list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=127633825 | No | |||||||||||
14 | arbiter Fractal KYC Verification | All completed | not done | ||||||||||||
15 | Do not use multi-signature addresses | Detailed explanation | Although Arbiters are rewarded retroactively as a whole, arbiters do not know each other and have never met. To ensure security, we will require the Foundation to collect all wallet addresses and provide them to the DAO for verification and arb distribution. | No detailed explanation | |||||||||||
16 | Most of the other questions raised by delegates in the 1.0 proposal | All questions explained | Please take a closer look at the 2.0 proposal | ||||||||||||
17 | |||||||||||||||
18 | |||||||||||||||
19 | |||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||
21 | |||||||||||||||
22 | |||||||||||||||
23 | |||||||||||||||
24 | |||||||||||||||
25 | |||||||||||||||
26 | |||||||||||||||
27 | |||||||||||||||
28 | |||||||||||||||
29 | |||||||||||||||
30 | |||||||||||||||
31 | |||||||||||||||
32 | |||||||||||||||
33 | |||||||||||||||
34 | |||||||||||||||
35 | |||||||||||||||
36 | |||||||||||||||
37 | |||||||||||||||
38 | |||||||||||||||
39 | |||||||||||||||
40 | |||||||||||||||
41 | |||||||||||||||
42 | |||||||||||||||
43 | |||||||||||||||
44 | |||||||||||||||
45 | |||||||||||||||
46 | |||||||||||||||
47 | |||||||||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||
49 | |||||||||||||||
50 | |||||||||||||||
51 | |||||||||||||||
52 | |||||||||||||||
53 | |||||||||||||||
54 | |||||||||||||||
55 | |||||||||||||||
56 | |||||||||||||||
57 | |||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||
59 | |||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||
61 | |||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||
63 | |||||||||||||||
64 | |||||||||||||||
65 | |||||||||||||||
66 | |||||||||||||||
67 | |||||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||
69 | |||||||||||||||
70 | |||||||||||||||
71 | |||||||||||||||
72 | |||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||
77 | |||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||
80 | |||||||||||||||
81 | |||||||||||||||
82 | |||||||||||||||
83 | |||||||||||||||
84 | |||||||||||||||
85 | |||||||||||||||
86 | |||||||||||||||
87 | |||||||||||||||
88 | |||||||||||||||
89 | |||||||||||||||
90 | |||||||||||||||
91 | |||||||||||||||
92 | |||||||||||||||
93 | |||||||||||||||
94 | |||||||||||||||
95 | |||||||||||||||
96 | |||||||||||||||
97 | |||||||||||||||
98 | |||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||
100 |