There is no doubt that whitelisting the Infura Nova validator can enhance the network’s robustness and reliability and support Arbitrum’s long-term growth and stability.
I fully support this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We understand that adding more validators, especially with proven uptime like Infura, is beneficial for the network’s security and reliability, and this step was long overdue.
We want to highlight the questions raised during the initial proposal discussion and would like further clarification on those.
Voted For: The proposal seems solid and straightforward. When researching Infura company I found out they have a very positive reputation. I see no reason not to support this proposal.
We’re voting For this proposal
- Infura is one of the oldest and most active infrastructure providers in the industry
- Infura already supports Arbitrum One
- Infura has been running a validator for Nova all this time, but is not whitelisted or registered due to oversight
- Infura’s validator uptime is > 99.6%
I voted FOR.
However, I must say that it lacked context and support documentation from the OP (So all delegates needed to go after it to properly vote).
Voted to Whitelist Infura Validator at the temp check stage, given that Infura is already running validators successfully.
Voted: Whitelist Infura Validator
Great to see the community rallying behind this decision. Infura’s strong track record in blockchain infrastructure gives us confidence that they’ll enhance the stability and reliability of the network.
We are voting in favor of this proposal.
Infura has demonstrated to be a trusted provider, so let’s solve this oversight for Nova’s benefit.
We’re voting FOR whitelisting Infura’s Nova validator. It’s a solid move to boost network security and stability. Infura’s already proven themselves in the Data Availability Committee, so this feels like a natural next step.
That said, we’re with the community on needing a clearer process for onboarding validators. It’d be great to see some transparent criteria and performance metrics down the line. This could help prevent oversights and keep everyone in the loop.
As we grow, let’s keep an eye on diversifying our validator pool. This is a good start, but there’s room to push for more decentralization as we move forward.
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted FOR this proposal. Echo the concerns of other delegates - hope that this oversight can be addressed and fixed through additional processes.
I’m voting in favor as this snapshot vote was mainly made in order to follow the “formal” procedure, but yes, it’s evident to me how Nova validator should be whitelisted. Its performance clearly shows good results and reliability. I fully support this proposal!
We’re supporting this proposal because infura has a strong track record as a trusted infrastructure provider, consistently delivering 99.6% uptime. They’ve also been supporting the network behind the scenes for years.
I will be voting “For” whitelisting Infura. In agreement with what others said - infura has a long history of providing reliable services.
Simple vote, but I’d echo what a few others have brought up. this is something that may need a more clear process for future applicants. I don’t think it needs to be overly complicated, but just a little more structured then posting on a delegate form.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We consider this as a simple oversight during the process and it’s natural to allow the provider with great track record to properly operate the validator as a Nova validator.
We have the same question, though. It’s contradicting to the statement Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC) ? The status page doesn’t show the Nova status either, nor it’s not that indication of Infura running a Nova validator?
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
Infura has been running a validator for a long time with exceptional uptime and we fully support whitelisting them.
1 Like
Voting FOR,
I have seen Infura’s work with not only protocols I have contributed to but also in the wider ecosystem. They are one of the leaders in the space and deserve to have a chance to prove that they can serve the ecosystem well as a validator.
Gm, gm 
The results are in for the [Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
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.
Voted FOR.
Infura has been in crypto for quite a long time and therefor some reputation.
Also agree that these kind of WL don’t need too much discussion. Its more a proposal to acknowledge a few validator.
I have voted in favour in the Snapshot temp check. It was not whitelisted before because of an oversight with the FND, this is a formality and they have been a validator a long time.