- Proposal: [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: Against
- Reasoning: We voted against this proposal. Since we first became aware of this proposal, we have expressed our concerns primarily about the budgetary implications. This proposal has continued to evolve until its final version was posted on Snapshot, and even today we see these concerns still present. We cannot support a proposal that asks for so much money while it is still experimental, although we appreciate the spirit behind the motion and what it seeks to accomplish. Beyond this budgetary issue for us, there is also not enough clarity in sensitive aspects of the proposal, such as if there will be enough ROI considering how much we are investing on each new delegate or ecosystem actor that will be part of the retention part expressed in the proposal, as well as other aspects that stand for evaluation criteria or the approach the team in charge is planning to keep. All in all, we have decided not to support this proposal in its current form.
- Proposal: TMC Stablecoin Recommendation
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy
- Reasoning: It is good to see that the ongoing votes have been split, unlike before, to avoid the general confusion that has arisen. On this occasion, we voted in favor of deploying the stablecoin strategy for the same reasons as before. At that time, we chose “only deploy stable strategy” as our first choice, and in line with that thinking, we voted to deploy the stable strategy again.
- Proposal: TMC ARB Recommendation
- Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
- Vote: NO, Deploy Nothing
- Reasoning: Again, we reiterate that it is good that the proposals are split to avoid confusion and hope that this will continue in the future. With respect to the ARB section of these recommendations, we have decided to vote “no, deploy nothing” as we do not believe it is the right time to do so. In line with what we have previously expressed in the combined proposal, now split into 2, we are only in favor of deploying the stable strategy, nothing else.
- Proposal: Security Council Elections (March 2025)
- Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
- Vote: 100% for Michael Lewellen
- Reasoning: We voted 100% for Michael Lewellen. We had a few candidates in mind, but ultimately made our decision to only support Michael after participating in the last Friday call about the Security Council elections. We followed the guidance provided in the March 2025 Member Election Phase post about what makes a good candidate to decide whether or not to split our vote. Michael was one of the candidates we considered because of his background, and after the meeting we were much more convinced to support him than before, not only because we believe he fully meets those guidelines, but also because of what we heard and saw during the call about this candidate in particular, such as his communication skills and his good disposition to talk about sensitive issues in public, showing himself as a safe option to deal with security issues that may arise. In the end, we decided to fully support him and only him for the reasons mentioned above. We thank all the other candidates for applying and consider them all to be excellent candidates for the position.