Vote: FOR
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program
See previous Snapshot Voting Rationale:
=== VOTING RATIONALE ===
Vote: FOR
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Fund the Stylus Sprint
Commenting on Proposal Link: [RFC] Fund The Stylus Sprint - #81 by AlexLumley
Previous Voting Rationale for snapshot:
=== VOTING RATIONALE: ===
I am voting FOR the âStylus Sprintâ proposal because it represents a strategic investment in Arbitrumâs technological ecosystem. By dedicating 5 million ARB to incentivize Stylus development, we are laying the groundwork for future innovations that could significantly enhance Arbitrumâs attractiveness to Rust and C++ developers. Stylus is a key competitive advantage, and this program is a proactive move to capitalize on it.
The proposalâs structured approachâwith an Evaluation Committee, milestone-based funding, and transparent assessment criteriaâdemonstrates a responsible allocation of resources aligned with long-term growth. The inclusion of marketing efforts further strengthens the programâs potential for success by attracting a wide audience. Ultimately, the Stylus Sprint will not only enrich Arbitrumâs technical landscape but also reinforce its position as a premier platform for decentralized applications.
Adopt a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalize Operations
Voted FOR this. A It is important to start to define our culture and values and how we work. A clear set of explicit guidelines is helpful for ensuring cordial participation.
I will note that I wish the DAO had better documentation around this and could make it easier for delegates to pick up exactly how to work so we donât always have to link to tallys and proposals.
These candidates seem good enough. I do not know any of the other options , but I trust Entropy did the work to find the right candidates.
I did attend the call in October on Treasury and Iâm glad that many of the proposals that we promoted at that point were brought up again during that time including: Service Provider Shortfalls, Flexible & Metrics-Driven Capital Deployment, Reinvesting Sequencer Revenue
I thought I had voted Against this proposal but for some reason it did not go through.
Voted FOR this proposal.
I stand by my snapshot comments.
Additionally I have the following thoughts on the changes.
I agree that with the Removal of the Operations Lead Position and Hats Protocol, especially Hats as that cuts the cost. That said, I would like the DAO to more holistically use Hats.
The other changes seem reasonable especially the retainer model so we arenât at risk of underutilitization.
I still have issues with the ARDC as I would prefer a marketplace approach rather than allowing one service provider to fill all of the roles.
I stand by my rationale for the Snapshot voting the proposal did not change much so it should be consistent.
=== VOTING RATIONALE ===
I voted FOR with On-chain Mechanism. I watched the collabtech hackathon closely and was very impressed at how it was more than just a hackathon but guidance and support over a month period.
I know Danielo well and I really believe in the collabtech venture builder, his ability and how having better teams that know how to ensure development can help Arbitrum overall.
Voted FOR the SOS proposal
see commenting rationale: Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) â Defining the DAOâs Interim Goals - #76 by AlexLumley
Voted FOR
I vote FOR this proposal.
The SOS framework provides a clear, community-driven process for setting strategic objectives that will guide Arbitrumâs development. By aligning the DAOâs mission, vision, and purpose with measurable goals, this initiative moves the DAO toward a more structured and effective governance model.
While there are details to refineâsuch as ensuring broad participation, refining submission selection, and integrating financial planningâthese can be addressed as the framework is implemented.
This proposal is a necessary next step, and we support its approval.
Voted Abstain from this proposal as I previously submitted a potentially competing proposal. If I would have had to vote I would have voted against as both proposals need a more iterative property to improve the communication flow in the DAO.
While I really respect Bold_Panther I think the time will eventually come for this Hub.
Shout out to my guy @JoJo the dude almost makes me want to go vegetarian.
@SEEDGov is the unsung hero of Arbitrum DAO . Enough said
Voted FOR @Uhthred because I am in favor of bringing in new actors in to the DAO that have proven themselves out but acknowledge that @Saurabh and @CastleCapital (@Atomist ) are both incredibly qualified.
VOTED: Flook
I heard no negative comments about the work @Flook did, more importantly I really appreciated the change he made focus on UA for gaming as that seemed to really drive new users to Arbitrum.
This was a great realization that the money would go further in marketing than in gaming development especially after the GCP.
Voted FOR the watchdog as I do believe it is necessary and to ensure there is some accountability mechanism for the DAO.
While I do NOT believe it will be the most effective program just having it will likely deter much misuse.
Voted FOR the BOLD proposal as
VOTED FOR the proposal same as I vote for both proposals in snapshot phases.
Voted FOR . This is exactly the type of funds the DAO can use towards diversifying our economies and bringing in new businesses.
I love that we can have second iteration of a proposal because the first one so well.
UPDATES FOR MARCH:
Voted #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy, #1 Deploy Both Strategies
Ended: Mar 27, 2025 ¡ 1:54 PM
Ended: Sat Mar 29, 10:44 am
Ended: Thu Mar 27, 08:46 pm
Voted for the following people in OpCo Vote:
Patrick McCorry (stonecoldpat)
A.J. Warner (ajwarner90)
Frisson (Frisson)
Jana Bertram (Janabe)
I voted for the following four people for the OpCo vote as I believe all of them are deep in Arbitrum and have an understanding of how Arbitrum works as well as have the appropriate experience to drive Arbitrum forward.
I voted for jsiena because I havenât spoke with her in the past. Iâve been very impressed with her and because I think that she would bring a different perspective to the down having worked as part of an actual building team Norwich from getting proposal past and while she has not worked as in depth in Arbitrum, I do believe that she is very well suited for this and could bring a different perspective.
After reviewing the information, I have followed the TMCâs recommendation that we do currently allocate ARB. That said, I agree with Coinflipâs sentiment that we should continue to look for opportunities to generate yield off our Arb. Additionally, I hear Federicoâs comment that the ARB should be deployed in ways where we can control our destiny, I donât think we need to choose one or the other. We can both invest in contributors, marketing, growth, etc - AND we can generate some yield off the ARB we hold.
I look forward to seeing what other options the ARB TMC group comes back with. TMCâs Proposed Allocations - #84 by Federico