We’re voting for this proposal because it makes smart changes on two fronts. Timeboost gives us a fair way to handle MEV while bringing in revenue for the DAO, and the Nova Fee Sweep just cleanly moves 1,885 ETH to where it belongs in our treasury. The implementation looks solid with proper audits and testing, and we like that we can adjust things if needed. Makes sense to do both in one vote.
I voted FOR on this proposal. The sweep brings idle funds to the treasury. I will leave the comments about Timeboost for when the onchain vote is up.
Voted ‘for’ in Snapshot. I think there isn’t much to discuss, and we should put the idle ETH to work in the best possible way for the DAO and the ecosystem. Also, I believe having something like timeboost to capture additional revenue that is sometimes captured by searchers is a great net positive for the DAO. Im so looking forward to see the benefits of timeboost!!
Very reasonable, nothing to add.
Voted FOR.
Like the others, there isn’t much to add. I vote in favor of transferring the funds to the DAO treasury.
This proposal is a good step for ArbitrumDAO. I think it helps collect more money and improve the system.
Timeboost is an interesting idea, but I wonder if it could create problems for smaller users who cannot afford to bid for faster transactions. So I would like to ask, how regular users might be affected—will normal transactions become slower?
I voted for this proposal at the temp check stage. I’m in favor of redirecting MEV revenue to the DAO (and hopefully eventually token holders). I agree with including Nova as a fee source.
I’m voting FOR this proposal.
It doesn’t seem to impact the user but helps get more revenue to the DAO treasury. Win-win!
Similarly, the Nove Fee Sweep seems to make accessing the funds more efficient. Another win for the DAO.
I’m supporting this proposal on Snapshot. The benefits of timeboost are clear and are something I’m personally excited about. It’s a great way for the DAO to generate extra revenue while still maintaining a high level of MEV resistance. Concerning the Nova fee sweep, it is a no-brainer, and it only makes sense to transfer the 1,885 ETH to the treasury. As others have already mentioned, I also support merging these proposals for the on-chain vote to streamline governance and ensure quorum.
I vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot. There are no reasons to oppose this proposal, it brings new funds that would be otherwise locked to be readily available for other uses to the DAO.
Also, Timesweep takes advantage of the possibility of bringing additional rewards to the ecosystem while reducing MEV affectations. I’m confident that the team will keep monitoring the impact of this new transaction order policy to fine tune it in the future, as it is said in the proposal.
We’re voting for Nova Fee Swap proposal on Snapshot as we believe this is a necessary and transparent action.
-
Recovering Idle Funds: The Nova Fee Sweep addresses the accumulation of 1,885 ETH in the L1TimelockAlias, ensuring that these funds are moved to the DAO treasury. The Nova Fee Router proposal has improved the efficiency and transparency of this process.
-
Supporting DAO Operations: These funds will contribute to DAO operations, with all transfers being conducted through on-chain, auditable smart contracts, ensuring transparency.
Simple decision, voted yes on Snapshot. Happy to see the DAO always having timely and transparent solutions for situations like this. Arbitrum DAO can unlock funds, streamline treasury management and reduce administrative burdens
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
Having voted in favor of the Nova fee router proposal in the past, it makes sense to retroactively perform a sweep and transfer the fees already accrued by Nova before the router implementation to the DAO’s treasury. We do not think there’s anything contentious with bundling the sweep with the Timeboost proposal onchain and therefore we support it.
Also, as we mentioned when we voted in favor of the temp-check for Timeboost, we commit to verifying the executable once the proposal goes to an onchain vote before we cast our vote.
I am voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I am considering the thorough vetting that this proposal has gone trough that includes security audits and testnet deployment. This upgrade represents a balance between generating revenue for the DAO and maintaining chain security.
The system implements robust fail-safes, including automatic reversion to FCFS ordering if needed, while keeping the DAO in control of key parameters. Additionally, the proposal will efficiently consolidate 1,885 ETH into the treasury.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
There is no reason to oppose this action. It is a logical step after having modernized the fee collection structure
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe it makes sense to execute a sweep stored by the Nova transactions as discussed in the previous proposal that we already supported. We also believe bundling the Timeboost change and this proposal should make sense for their onchain voting.
I beleive in Arbitrum’s long-term progression and stability, this is why I vote FOR. Less spam, better efficiency and + 1,885 ETH into the DAO Treasury.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR, without retroactive in this proposal. Below the rationale:
Voting “For”, not really much to say as at end of the day other than no sense in having idle ETH.
Voted FOR as this is clearly in the best interest of the DAO and of the protocol. One future consideration for the eventual combined AIP given this:
It would be ideal to have some kind of dashboard or reporting that would provide this data in a way that would help the DAO to monitor how Timeboost is performing over time.