The very first (AIP-1) proposal voted with newly airdropped governance tokens ($ARB) caused a conflict with the community of the project when it turned out that Arbitrum Foundation began selling $ARB for stablecoins even before its community had "ratified" the organization's nearly $1 billion budget.

The AIP-1 proposal on Arbitrum's DAO suggests that the 750 million tokens would cover "Special Grants, reimbursing applicable service providers [...] and covering ongoing administrative and operational costs of The Arbitrum Foundation." But $ARB holders voted over 82% against this move at the time of writing:

Following criticism from the community, the Foundation clarified in a forum post that AIP-1 was "not a proposal but rather a ratification." It further explained that a portion of the tokens had already been sold for stablecoins, meaning the allocation of its billionaire budget would not be subject to an on-chain governance process.

This caused reasonable annoyance in the community, to which the project team had to respond urgently… but In a rather peculiar way:

Commenting on the governance forum, members of the community pointed out that Arbitrum's team "has been dumping tokens that were initially informed to the community as locked tokens," claiming that "all tokenomics page shows only User airdrop + DAO airdrop tokens as unlocked" with remaining "tokens to unlock in March 2024." Others highlighted that under the United States securities laws, the anticipated sale would be considered fraud and that U.S. citizens who have bought ARB tokens or claimed the airdrop "are eligible for legal remedies." (Source)

Basically, despite the proposal being rejected by the community, the Foundation had already spent 6.7% of the 750 million ARB tokens.

Even the project partners had to deny participating in this story:

AIP-1 is clearly slated to fail, and Arbitrum pledges no 'near-term" $ARB sales amid community revolt.

…And that was seemingly enough to win back some influential voices:

But Chris Blec, among others, would like to clarify: