# Areta Delegate Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Statements\ **Tags:** delegation, delegate-statements\ **Created:** [August 15, 2024, 10:05am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376 "2024-08-15T10:05:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 16
**Author:** ![Chris\_Areta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/chris_areta/32/13801_2.png) [@Chris\_Areta](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Chris_Areta)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2025, 12:48pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376/16 "2025-08-20T12:48:35Z")
### Proposal: **[Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x9ea3f5ef5b6c838ffc24430bb927baa13bf25dcf5f444358e89f0958bb41a5e7)** **Vote** : Reduce delegation to 100K **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We voted to reduce the delegation to Event Horizon to 100K. The pivot to agentic governance represents a significant departure from the original mandate, which focused on voter enfranchisement. For that reason, it doesn’t seem reasonable to continue supporting it with the initial 7M ARB delegation. That said, it also makes sense not to completely remove Event Horizon’s delegation, as withdrawing 7M from the votable supply would compound existing issues with delegate participation and reaching quorum. While 100K is a minor amount, it is a far better option than 0. * * * ### Proposal: **[Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1de2707ab4cf792721544a8f82eee98535c16ce437ba2ac95a78c85c20b6d8b0)** **Vote** : Off-chain **Type** : FOR **Rationale** : We would like to thank the MSS members for their leadership and for the value they provided in helping streamline the disbursement of DAO funds. We support the proposal to wind down the MSS and transfer payment responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation for three key reasons: - **Cost Efficiency** : Transferring payment responsibilities to the Foundation will reduce the DAO’s operating expenses, as funds will no longer be allocated to compensation for MSS members. - **Operational Efficiency** : With the Foundation taking on payment responsibilities, payment processing and compliance will be more effectively coordinated within the processes the Foundation already manages. - **Security** : The Foundation managing payments carries fewer risks, given its established internal processes and capabilities. * * * ### Proposal: [Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xfd373c58adbb013a05c778b71ccffb19e5bbefb8a100232f67eced33c58e22f7) **Vote** : Off-chain **Type** : FOR **Rationale** : We support the proposal to reallocate redeemed USDM funds to the STEP 2 budget. This is a straightforward decision for us. Using the funds in this way aligns with the DAO’s intended objective of investing in stable RWAs, so we see no contradiction and consider it the sensible path forward. * * * ### Proposal: **[Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x38663c36b26252acff6c6ca43663167858f51f960235dc0441bd2ad4a8f66fb1)** **Vote** : AGAINST **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We would like to thank the @paulofonseca and team for bringing up this initiative, including past and ongoing contributions to improving governance participation in ArbitrumDAO, both online and offline. Having provided some [feedback](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-let-s-improve-our-governance-forum-with-three-proposals-app-feature-integrations/29398/33) on this proposal, we’ve ultimately decided to vote against it. While [proposals.app](http://proposals.app/) offers some useful features for delegates, we believe it introduces only minimal improvements to the DAO’s overall governance stack and processes. For that reason, we do not think allocating $60k to this initiative represents the most optimal use of the DAO’s resources at this point in time. * * * ### Proposal: **[Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x65b2b835f03bc18aa401b88702145e6b7686e8d7ddddfd956837251f8a7a7da1)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We support the proposal to update the OpCo’s operational capabilities to address key limitations in its original mandate across contractual capacity, treasury spend, employee compensation, council election eligibility, conflict of interest, and ecosystem support. While the DAO opted to err on the side of caution in establishing the OpCo, it is now clear that many provisions in the original proposal were too restrictive and, if left unchanged, would ultimately prevent the OpCo from effectively executing its intended objectives. We believe it is appropriate to update the OpCo’s operational capabilities in this way so it can function as intended. * * * ### Proposal: [DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/13050485773425645466153415888358064378805606653363056526521393182333458879398?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote** : FOR **Type** : On-chain **Rationale** : We voted in support of this proposal during the off-chain vote based on the rationale [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/defi-renaissance-incentive-program-drip/29049/82). Our view remains unchanged and we will also vote in support of the on-chain vote. * * * ### Proposal: **[[Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xeb044e3bdeba71e74dea02abeab4c33fe4bf5ab9def50082863702d5e2112b93)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We voted in support of this proposal because we believe it makes sense to remove the amortize cost cap if continuing to subsidize Nova no longer delivers meaningful benefits. That said, we look forward to learning more about the roadmap for Nova and understanding what its ultimate fate will be: > [@\[Constitutional\] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/15): > > That said, since one of Nova’s original selling points was its ultra-low fees, it feels appropriate to open a broader conversation about Nova’s trajectory. What is the roadmap for Nova now that its cost advantage over Arbitrum One has narrowed? It’s been noted that Nova carries a “lower strategic priority within the Arbitrum ecosystem”. Is Nova’s fate already set in stone, or are there plans to reinvigorate its value proposition over the longer term? > [@\[Constitutional\] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/40): > > Thanks for your comment. The roadmap for Nova is still being decided. We don’t have any concrete answers to your question yet, besides what this proposal offers. * * * ### Proposal: **[Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xfab795313df4ef1023c5f7f9027857637cc3841d62dc0b54796fbfa5f8096919)** **Vote** : Off-chain **Type** : FOR **Rationale** : We voted in favour of this proposal as we believe that consolidating treasury management functions within a single body (the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council) reduces unnecessary fragmentation, duplication of functions, and overhead costs, while supporting better coordination and operational efficiency. We are comfortable with the ATMC’s proposed composition, which includes AAEs and DAO representation through the OAT. We would like to thank all committees, including the TMC, GMC, and STEP committees, for previously carrying out these functions and laying the groundwork for a more streamlined process. * * * ### Proposal: **[[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/94423886836435773843507976898262621297544156552971145658873213763398017341229?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)** **Vote** : AGAINST **Type** : On-chain **Rationale** : We voted against the offchain proposal based our rationale [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376/15). We will similarly be voting against during the onchain vote. * * * ### Proposal: **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/71020107401388505040510993373598301285550678565865201408741893567942851985019?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)** **Vote** : On-chain **Type** : FOR **Rationale** : We voted FOR this proposal because registering the Sky custom gateway contracts in the router contracts is a win-win for both Arbitrum and the Sky ecosystem. This integration will allow users to bridge Sky’s USDS and sUSDS through the official Arbitrum Bridge UI, improving the user experience while enabling both ecosystems to access each other’s user base and liquidity, driving cross-ecosystem growth. We welcome this step and are supportive of it. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > **Rationale** : This proposal essentially seeks to enable bridging of USDS and sUSDS tokens through the official Arbitrum bridge UI. We are in support of this proposal because it seeks to create a seamless experience for Arbitrum users seeking to access Spark/Sky products, while bearing no costs or risks to the DAO. We’re happy to see stronger alignment between both ecosystems who are leaders in their respective verticals. * * * ### Proposal: **[Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Year 2 and Year 3](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x320cd2a99a0544184c06e1bd305aab1fc226ab0b498e077bc857a07045194f43)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We would like to thank @Entropy for their immensely valuable contributions to ArbitrumDAO across several workstreams over the past year. Their impact on DAO activities and the broader ecosystem has been clear. We believe it is the right step for the DAO to extend their mandate and continue supporting their work. * * * ### Proposal:[**[Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc08147e229fa642ee7da2e5180f225122b8c517024902f21cdcd02b376179b8d) **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We thank the Arbitrum Foundation and core protocol teams for their continued efforts in maintaining, improving, and upgrading the network. We welcome this proposal to update the Upgrade Executors, as it will allow critical protocol upgrades to be executed more efficiently without indirect delegate calls. We will be voting FOR this proposal. * * * ### Proposal: **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x586de5bf366820c4369c041b0bbad2254d78fafe1dcc1528c1ed661bb4dfb671)** **Vote** : Off-chain **Type** : FOR **Rationale** : This proposal to enable bridging of the $BORING token through the official Arbitrum Bridge UI is a welcome step. While a relatively small UX improvement, it can generate meaningful cross-ecosystem benefits for both the Superboring and Arbitrum ecosystems. We will be voting FOR this proposal. * * * ### Proposal: **[[Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd5a66f784523841511f7ffec4171b9c14404fdbf7c205086312084d19c95c193)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We voted FOR this proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge for Arbitrum One. With the migration to the new USDT0 bridge, this is a practical decision. Disabling the legacy bridge protects depositors from slower settlement times and potential loss of funds. * * * ### Proposal: **[Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x95a85f5d3d82215793ba9771ff06610d2ba9e2eaf58cdba904d7a9cb5b8bdc94)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : We support this proposal to leverage idle stablecoin capital in generating yield for the DAO. The DAO has an active vehicle for treasury management via the ATMC and DAO-approved onchain treasury managers, which it should maximize. We believe it is more productive to utilize unused capital in this way rather than return it to the treasury. * * * ### Proposal: **[Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Y2-Y3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/37638751032596392177176596241110468090299645534448966767963399982622616318705?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : On-chain **Rationale:** We previously voted in support of this proposal during the off-chain vote, based on the rationale below. Our stance remains the same and we will be voting similarly for the on-chain vote. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > **Rationale** : We would like to thank @Entropy for their immensely valuable contributions to ArbitrumDAO across several workstreams over the past year. Their impact on DAO activities and the broader ecosystem has been clear. We believe it is the right step for the DAO to extend their mandate and continue supporting their work * * * ### Proposal: **[[Non-Constitutional] - Updates to the DIP, The Complete 1.7 Version](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x008f190725018c3db0e6464bf31d44f09a4d7773fd1486dff0c52c27b8aba289)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale:** We are voting FOR this proposal which introduces Arbitrum DIP V1.7 as an update to the existing DIP. We would like to thank the Program Managers @SEEDGov for their continuous efforts in managing the program, responsiveness and overall approach to seeking and implementing feedback especially on such a sensitive topic. Our rationale for voting in support and our general thoughts on the proposal are as follows: **Introduction of Tier X** - We support the introduction of Tier X and the incentivization of voting participation, particularly for larger delegates. This is a welcome development. - Recent trends in the DAO highlight the importance of voting participation. Incentivizing holders of significant voting power to exercise it is a logical step. While other forms of governance participation are also valuable to encourage, without sufficient voting engagement (and quorum), much of the effort is ultimately wasted. **~40% Reduction** - We align with the option to maintain the 40% reduction pending the introduction of a new delegate incentive program, as opposed to the other proposed alternatives. Our reasoning is as follows: * * * ### Proposal: **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/97685288731263391833044854304895851471157040105038894699042975271050068874277?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)** **Vote** : FOR **Type** : On-chain **Rationale** : We previously voted in support of this proposal during the off-chain vote, based on the rationale below. Our stance remains the same and we will be voting similarly for the on-chain vote. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > **Rationale** : This proposal to enable bridging of the $BORING token through the official Arbitrum Bridge UI is a welcome step. While a relatively small UX improvement, it can generate meaningful cross-ecosystem benefits for both the Superboring and Arbitrum ecosystems. We will be voting FOR this proposal. * * * ### Proposal: [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Remove Cost Cap, Update Executors, Disable Legacy USDT Bridge](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/51852039695020109312343918128899814224888993575448130385109956762385891284115?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) Vote: FOR Type: On-chain Rationale: We voted FOR all three proposals during the off-chain vote based on the following rationales and we will similarly be voting FOR in the on-chain vote > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > ### Proposal: **[[Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xeb044e3bdeba71e74dea02abeab4c33fe4bf5ab9def50082863702d5e2112b93)** > > **Vote** : FOR > > **Type** : Off-chain > > **Rationale** : We voted in support of this proposal because we believe it makes sense to remove the amortize cost cap if continuing to subsidize Nova no longer delivers meaningful benefits. That said, we look forward to learning more about the roadmap for Nova and understanding what its ultimate fate will be: > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > ### Proposal:[**[Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc08147e229fa642ee7da2e5180f225122b8c517024902f21cdcd02b376179b8d) > > **Vote** : FOR > > **Type** : Off-chain > > **Rationale** : We thank the Arbitrum Foundation and core protocol teams for their continued efforts in maintaining, improving, and upgrading the network. We welcome this proposal to update the Upgrade Executors, as it will allow critical protocol upgrades to be executed more efficiently without indirect delegate calls. We will be voting FOR this proposal. > [@Chris\_Areta](#): > > ### Proposal: **[[Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd5a66f784523841511f7ffec4171b9c14404fdbf7c205086312084d19c95c193)** > > **Vote** : FOR > > **Type** : Off-chain > > **Rationale** : We voted FOR this proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge for Arbitrum One. With the migration to the new USDT0 bridge, this is a practical decision. Disabling the legacy bridge protects depositors from slower settlement times and potential loss of funds. * * * ### Proposal: [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 50 Dia](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x33754da4006d0ef38666ec5d5e85fd0966a891a594ab9dc21f23beedea2d330b) **Vote** : FOR **Type** : Off-chain **Rationale** : This proposal seeks to upgrade Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova to ArbOS 50 Dia. The upgrade will bring efficiency improvements and introduce new features, including support for Ethereum’s upcoming Fusaka upgrade and native mint/burn. We believe these improvements represent a positive step for Arbitrum users and the broader ecosystem. As long-term core contributors and Arbitrum-aligned entities, we believe @offchain has proposed this upgrade with the understanding that it is critical to the protocol’s advancement. We will therefore be voting in support of the proposal. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/areta-delegate-thread/26376)._