This analysis is based on SimScore-selected responses. SimScore analyzed all 261 forum responses and identified the top 10 most representative perspectives (similarity scores ranging 0.381-0.430). This algorithmic approach ensures we're working with the most relevant community feedback, removing potential bias in response selection.
Using Vitalik Buterin's concave disposition framework, we visualized governance value distribution. The graph below shows:
| Point A | Point B | Red Dot | Blue Curve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation Control | DAO Control | Current Proposal Position | Value Disposition |
Top 10 responses used in this analysis had similarity scores of:
| SImscore Priority List | Forum Response | Author | Similarity Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top 1 | At this time, the DAO has no way of providing a security audit subsidy to projects, given that the previous subsidy fund from the ADPC has run out and there have been no steps to renew it. In our view, it makes sense for the Foundation to administer the security subsidy fund, given its position and proximity to both builders and Arbitrum’s tech.To | krst | 43.0% |
| Top 2 | The foundation has a grant program that can also include audits for what I know. This has been true and known since the very beginning. You can find more info here. Beside, in every ecosystem foundations have internal grant programs to sponsor protocols and builders. I agree tho that more transparency in this sense would be something good for the dao as well. | jojo | 42.7% |
| Top 3 | One thing we’d like to point out about the proposal itself is that the Foundation will run the subsidy fund on behalf of the DAO using the DAO’s funds. As such, we’ll hold them to the same standard as any and all other contributors and service providers, and we actually expect them to be an example of what a DAO-funded program should look like. | krst | 42.6% |
| Top 4 | Besides, I don’t understand why the Arbitrum Foundation takes money for the program from DAO, and DAO barely participates in it. | cp0x | 42.0% |
| Top 5 | The Foundation states they have been “stepping in via our grant program to sponsor audits for builders over the past year.” This raises serious governance concerns. The DAO funded the Foundation for specific operational purposes and the ADPC was explicitly voted in to manage audit subsidies. The Foundation’s operational budget was not intended as a shadow grant program. While we appreciate the desire to support builders, this pattern of unilateral actions outside established governance frameworks and apparent repurposing of operational funds demands immediate scrutiny. We request: | q31 | 41.5% |
| Top 6 | Considering the history of the DAO and involvement of its participants (delegates and service providers) who have spent 2 years to try to get this experiment right, our strong preference is a continuation of the direct communication we had had with the Foundation until very recently as this shift by the Foundation to internalise a proposal that external contributors had been working on (and that the Foundation were aware of) could have resulted in a more streamlined approach and more seamless transition planning. The current approach is sub-optimal for the DAO, and we believe other delegates and ecosystem participants would tend to agree. The ADPC remains prepared to work with the Foundation on the understanding this can be done with mutual respect and transparency. | adpc | 40.7% |
| Top 7 | I think we could give money for audit projects together with the AVI (Arbitrum Venture Initiative) project. | cp0x | 39.4% |
| Top 8 | I really like this proposal. Audit costs are a significant barrier to entry for early-stage projects, and subsidizing them for valuable teams is a highly effective way to support builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Security is critical, especially for new projects, and reducing the financial burden of audits will help ensure that promising teams can launch safely without cutting corners. | bertani | 39.0% |
| Top 9 | Thank you for posting a well-structured proposal. It is very straightforward. Overall, I like the idea of helping projects cover audit costs, especially the projects that have good potential for Arbitrum. I do have some concerns about a few points of the proposal. | Tekr0x.eth | 38.6% |
| top 10 | We would also like to emphasize that we see this program as a BD initiative that should first and foremost drive the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. Therefore, we expect that whoever the OCL and AF representatives will be in the committee, they will coordinate internally to make sure that the projects selected to receive audit grants are in line with Arbitrum’s long-term growth strategy. | krst | 38.4% |