Less than 24 hours since I posted this, one of the candidates frontrun the others and insta-purchased 20M ARB votes for his candidacy.

Once the info was out that votes could be purchased (not a secret anyway, it was public in forums), there was a first-mover advantage ready for the taking.

The incentive structure creates a race to be first.

A discussion has spurred in the Arbitrum Governance circles in regard to the validity of these mechanics.

• Is buying votes accepted?

• Is this considered a gov attack?

• Can the proposer set the rules, or should the DAO do it?

• Should abstain votes count towards quorum?

IMO and at this point - this is fair game. If a whale delegated to lobbyfi and they enabled this VP to be purchased, it's part of the decentralization availability.

If the DAO decides that it does not want votes to be purchased, it should create incentives that discourage this behaviour. Like for example, ARB staking yield, which is another ongoing discussion.

This is all new, however, and it's interesting to see it develop. The DAO has to deal with it, not outright prohibit it. Create the appropriate incentive structure and/or rules, AND do this by public vote.

As I said yesterday, I'm not sure this will guarantee him (candidate #8, Joseph) to be elected since the quorum is north of 180M, and this vote gives him just 20M.

There are 12 candidates, with the top 3 to be elected.

I will probably be throwing my 11M ARBs to just one candidate, not distributing equally. Stay tuned.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。