Across multiple elections, I look a pattern where voting rationale tends to favor well-established, frequently recurring contributors. As a multi-protocol delegate, how do you guard against familiarity bias in your evaluation process and what concrete criteria do you apply when assessing newer or lesser-known contributors who might bring genuinely independent perspectives to Arbitrum’s governance… @AranaDigital
Reliability is of utmost importance when it comes to security in particular. We give higher weight to familiar names that have a proven track record, especially to those we have interfaced with directly. In the present security council election, for example, more of our ARB is allotted to such entities—but a smaller portion is also given to newer/up-and-coming groups. That helps strike a healthy medium.
1 Like
April 2026 Security Council Member Election
- We portioned out voting power among 4 different candidates.
- Our allocations were divided into two buckets: major and minor.
- For major, we gave 1.5M to Michael & 1M to Certora—both due to our oberervance of their active involvement in multiple DAOs, including Arbitrum through the Security Council in the past. Certora has a strong, professional track record of reliability in protocol security. And Michael has extensive experience in the space as well, both from working at OpenZeppelin in the past and currently being involved in multiple DAOs from a security + governance standpoint.
- For minors, we portioned 400k each to Blockful and Cyfrin. We are familiar with the Blockful team based on their high-quality work in governance security (via Anticapture, for example)—an area that’s often neglected by many. And Cyfrin for their work in the zkSync ecosystem.
1 Like
summary of UADP’s governance stance
Their research-first approach and emphasis on transparency especially pushing back on monopoly risks (Security Enhancement Fund) while supporting fair RFP processes reflects mature delegate thinking. The shift from Snapshot hesitation to on-chain “For” vote on ARDC also shows pragmatic community alignment.
Looking forward to seeing how their metagovernance model evolves across future Arbitrum proposals. @AranaDigital @farfel.eth
Approve Release of Frozen ETH
- Snapshot Vote: For
- We support the release of the frozen ETH to the DeFi United recovery effort. These funds are exploiter proceeds that the Security Council acted swiftly to immobilize, and that decisive intervention is precisely what now puts Arbitrum in a position to meaningfully help users who were harmed through this exploit. The continued freeze carries hefty costs for affected users across multiple markets and chains, including Arbitrum-side Aave participants accruing interest on positions they can’t close. Routing the ETH towards the remediation effort is the clearest path to neutralizing that harm and restoring rsETH’s backing in full.
We nonetheless remain attentive to the legal overhead this proposal carries for voters, like around delegate indemnification, where the current structure routes delegate protection through the Captive Insurance Product rather than direct coverage from Aave Labs. This is leaving delegates structurally less protected than the Foundation and OCL on a vote where the same legal exposure may apply.
Still, on balance, the upside to users is pretty clear, though. So, we remain biased towards swift remediation.
Transfer 6,000 ETH and Idle Stablecoins from the Treasury to the Treasury Management Portfolio
- Onchain Vote: For
- Our stance has not changed since the Snapshot vote—we have voted in favor of this proposal to prioritize capital efficiency, putting the noted ETH and stables to work, as opposed to letting them rest idle.