ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
1
Empowering Early Contributors: The difference between the community Arbiter Proposal 2.0 and 1.0
2
Difference comparison2.0 ProposalSummary/Overview1.0 Proposal
3
Why did the Arbiters initiate this proposal?Detailed explanationAfter 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 abiterDetailed introduction and explanationthe 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 amount125K ARB500K ARB
6
Arbiter did not receive any arb airdrop rewardsAdd explanationAfter 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 explanationarbiter 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 amountsDetailed explanation, comparison, and detailed listingDetailed 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 evaluationTry establishing from multiple angles. But all were unsuccessful. Detailed arguments and explanationsarbiter 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 arbitersDetailed explanationArbiters 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 equallyDetailed explanationarbiter 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 contributionsStructural sorting and summary of contribution categories. Addition of supporting materials such as sample links and screenshotsList 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 listAdd toarbiter individual contribution list:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YjSCrAYJg2A1T5r8YpZx5BbfLQeyhBePqPtW5pA83dU/edit#gid=127633825		No
14
arbiter Fractal KYC VerificationAll completednot done
15
Do not use multi-signature addressesDetailed explanationAlthough 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 proposalAll questions explainedPlease 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