Hey everyone, just flagging that this AIP was incorrectly labeled initially (has been changed) on the forum post and on Snapshot as a Non-Constitutional AIP, but this change in fact would require a Constitutional AIP.
As per the ArbitrumDAO constitution, this falls under an action that requires “chain owner” (aka the DAO) permission on Arbitrum Nova.
When this proposal progresses to an onchain vote on Tally, it will be labeled correctly as a Constitutional AIP.
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
This was an easy vote as Infura is trustworthy, has the expertise, and has been carrying out validations for a while now.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal—no reason not to support this since Infura has been supporting Arbitrum for a long time, is a well-known infra provider, and has great reliability as per their uptime stat.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
Voting Rationale Link: Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #27 by AlexLumley
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Infura’s long-standing role as a trusted infrastructure provider with a proven track record of reliability and exceptional uptime makes whitelisting them as a Nova validator a logical and beneficial step. Their contribution to the Data Availability Committee (DAC) reinforces their capability to enhance the Arbitrum ecosystem’s stability and security. Additionally, as echoed by other community members, establishing a transparent and structured onboarding process for future validators would strengthen accountability and consistency.
In line with the feedback from various delegates, I also see value in considering diversification of validators in the future to promote decentralization. A clearly defined set of criteria for future applicants would help streamline decisions and maintain high standards for validator onboarding.
I have voted FOR in Tally. This is my rationale, same as before:
