# AIP: BOLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-bold-permissionless-validation-for-arbitrum/23232>\
**Category:** Finalized AIPs\
**Created:** [April 16, 2024, 2:36pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-bold-permissionless-validation-for-arbitrum/23232 "2024-04-16T14:36:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 104

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2025, 4:59pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-bold-permissionless-validation-for-arbitrum/23232/104 "2025-01-22T16:59:46Z")

</div>

_After consideration, the [@SEEDgov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/seedgov) delegation has decided to “ **FOR** ” on this proposal at the [Tally Vote](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/101924107818180443784046677916233531742645798596604549673138282938475874935972?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)._

### Rationale

Considering what was expressed when we voted on Snapshot:

> [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/44):
>
> BOLD is a leap in quality in almost every sense.
> 
> Arbitrum seeks to align itself as closely as possible with Ethereum, by openly allowing all stakeholders to act in providing security to the network. A new permissionless validation system with well-delineated incentives is a win-win for the network and those honest parties looking to lock up capital safely.
> 
> This update brings security improvements, provides solutions to existing problems, has 0 negative implications for the user, and elevates the participation of individuals and institutions in the functioning of the network, so it’s definitely a YES to all.

We still believe that BoLD is a necessary step in the roadmap of any rollup that seeks to be as decentralized, censorship-resistant, and secure as possible.

Regarding the Infura whitelist, we maintain our previously stated position:

> [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47):
>
> ## [Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
> 
> _After consideration, the [@SEEDgov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/seedgov) delegation has decided to “ **FOR** ” on this proposal at the [Snapshot vote](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xaa831b9306c3ec4f4a9b9731e7c445e540e5a24461a79f1166cb8dcdfa692d09)._
> 
> ## Rationale
> 
> Given Infura’s strong reputation within the crypto ecosystem and the validator’s track record of excellent uptime, we see this proposal as an easy yes.
> 
> We also share the sentiment expressed by other delegates regarding whether the DAO will need to whitelist additional validators in the future or if this is a one-time consideration.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-bold-permissionless-validation-for-arbitrum/23232)._