Payment of $1,500 to Arbscan to have the $Kitty token listed properly (logos and Socials)

Abstract:

Arbscan required $1,500 to add the logos and social links to their service such that is listed as a credible and validated version of the etherium token, but represented and usable on the Arbitrum chain.

Hi Team,

Thank you for the sign message.

Kindly refer to the details below for priority support:

Priority Support Service Requester issue: Token contract ownership & Token Info Update based on Ethereum's contract Token contract: (0x9E30239205320b4b23C71e1B087ed2550D9971be) is the $kitty token on Arbitrum. Total Payment: $ 1,500

Motivation:

Adding $kitty to Arbscan allows members and partners to easily validate and verify the $kitty on the arbitrum chain.

This expands the scope and utility options for the token and offers advantages in expanding possible future services and functions.

Implementation:

Payment of $1,500 is required from the DAO multisig. Helpfully there is already $2,094.85 USDC in the multisig as a result of truing up previous transactions for the media package.

This means no $kitty sale is required to process this payment.

NO NEW $Kitty TOKENS ARE CREATED IN THIS PROCESS.

Timeline:

Immediately at the end of the voting period. The author seeks to use the accelerated voting process-- emergency.

Total cost: the total cost of the proposal’s full implementation.

$1,500 + gas if requested by the committee member paying.

Risk assessment:

Ongoing clarification is being sort to ensure we get the desired outcome, including making sure the logo and socials are capable of being added to the requested token.

Why has this proposal been declared an emergency by the Committee? We need to keep momentum with Arbscan.

What kind of serious damages would be caused to the DAO or to other people or entities if the proposal wasn't declared an emergency? Possible non listing of $kitty on Arbscan.

What alternative solutions could mitigate these damages and why has the emergency status been preferred to them? Not applicable.