Request for Acceptance of Arbitrum Bridged Tokens to Governance
With the approval of the Communications Budget a portion of the approved budget is being bridged to Arbitrum. I would like to move forward with adding the Arbitrum token address to be allowed to participate in voting via SnapShot.org along with adding the token contract to allow holders of Phonon Token on Arbitrum to be granted DAO Member within Discord.
Token Address on Arbitrum: 0x39a49bc5017fc668299cd32e734c9269acc35295
Yes, I want to add as many DAO Members we can and I completely support lowering the cost to entry of the DAO.
No, I don’t want the platform to grow.
If anyone else has any concerns or suggestions I’ll leave this this open for 5 days for discussion before moving to snapshot.
That said, I’d like to raise my concern regarding the way the choices are phrased. Not to pick on this post specifically, I’ve seen hints of this in previous polls too. It this hinders the opportunity to offer constructive criticism by prejudging the reasons for voting against the proposal. I think, especially during the consensus gathering phase, we should even do the polar opposite: encourage people to find a way to (constructively) disagree with the post, so that we can arrive at an overall better proposal by addressing the potential shortcomings (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). Therefore I would ask that future polls have neutrally phrased options. Let me know what you think!
I agree with this sentiment. I know tuesdays, and I don’t think there is (nor are you implying there was) any ill intent. I can picture him saying “No, I don’t want the platform to grow” in a joking tone. That said, I’m with you that we should strive for neutral language to encourage dissent.
It is definitely my side of sarcasm, and my attempt at humor is probably not needed here. I do think that it would be a horrid president to set on this to say a layer 0 platform doesn’t recognize a variety of blockchains, but I will tone down the statements in future polls.
Yeah I have absolutely nothing against Tuesdays and I am fully convinced that there was no ill intent here. I also very much agree with the proposal, even as far as to say that I think the way the choices are phrased is what a yes/no vote means here in practice.
It may seem like a non-issue in this case because we are probably all confident about the right choice and care about seeing it through. But it is also exactly when thoughtful criticism can help the most to spot any potential downsides or blind spots with the proposal. I know I have changed my opinion on a few seemingly trivial topics based on comments here and on discord.