Argonaut Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
, ,
102
  • 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.
103
104
  • 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.
105
  • 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.
106
  • Proposal: Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We have indicated on occasion that we are in favor of diversifying the treasury, and so we see with very good eyes these allocations favored by the committee, and we see that they are very well balanced among them. One thing to keep in mind is that out of 50 applications, the committee was able to narrow that down to only 3 applicants to receive grants, and that must not have been an easy task. As other delegates have indicated, we would also like to know how the committee arrived at this number. We encourage the STEP 2 members to clarify this if the proposal passes. As for the selected applications, we have reviewed them and see nothing strange or reason not to support their election. We continue to trust STEP as we always have, and their work so far has been very positive. All in all, we voted for this motion.
  • Proposal: [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: Yes to both
  • Reasoning: As we stated in our forum comment, we will be supporting this proposal. We see it as a very good and timely solution to a problem that should not remain unresolved and set a bad precedent for the DAO in the future. We really have no concerns about this reallocation of funds and even consider it a very smart move that is actually positive for the DAO. Instead of setting a bad precedent, we would be doing the opposite, which is good for all of us. People submitting proposals will have more confidence in us if DAO-approved initiatives can count on that support. These kinds of moves are cheap or free to the Foundation in the end, while at the same time we as a community can show ourselves to be reliable partners through these kinds of actions.
107
  • Proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning:
    We voted FOR this proposal again. We see no reason to change what we said about this proposal in the previous instance. Our only concern about it was that it was taking so long to be in the onchaing vote considering what it means in terms of security and transparency counting with this proposal already implemented as part of the DAO. We are happy to see that this vote is finally happening and see great value in what this watchdog proposal is looking for. The budget and implementation of GlobalLeaks is not a concern to us, on the contrary, we see the budget as more than reasonable and GlobalLeaks as a great partner to deal with these tasks. All in all, we voted for this proposal.
108
  • Proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: As we stated in our comment, we see great potential in the implementation of this incentive framework, especially considering how it was developed (from past incentive programs and their lessons learned). However, we remain concerned about the incredibly high amount of funding being requested for an untested program that will be in its infancy if this proposal is approved. While ambitious and potentially valuable to the DAO, we cannot avoid this concern. The only relief we have is the team behind this proposal. These are all points we raised when we made our comment in the forum proposal that despite our questions not being fully answered, we voted FOR the proposal due to the aforementioned potential we see.
109
  • Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We reiterate our support for this proposal as we did in its previous instance. We have not changed our mind about this proposal, and especially now that we are in Step 6 of its implementation, we will not change our mind either. We are happy to see how this motion is progressing with all the previous steps already completed, and see that everything is going smoothly in the expected direction. The only thing we would urge the Foundation and the DAO in general is that for future ETH protocol updates that we need to align with, we expedite their implementations in a faster way, as we lose competitiveness by taking so long to do something that we should be doing proactively. Without further consideration from our side, we support the new instance of this proposal.
110
  • Proposal: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: Our team voted for this threshold reduction because no core governance contracts will be affected by upgrades or audits. This reduction is minimal yet effective in maintaining an appropriate threshold for quorum. It will continue to help legitimate proposals pass while discouraging malicious ones from being approved. Given this information, it is impossible for us to oppose this proposal, and its implementation makes a lot of sense to us. Therefore, we support it.
111
  • Proposal: Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: B - Reduce delegation to 100K
  • Reasoning: We have voted in favor of Option B. Rather than calling for a complete revocation of delegation, we believe that scaling back to 100,000 ARB offers a reasonable compromise. It provides enough voting power to support further testing and iteration without introducing excessive risk to governance outcomes. This approach allows Event Horizon to continue developing its tooling and methodology while reinforcing the principle that large-scale delegation should follow community validation, especially when the core mechanisms evolve.
    As experimentation in governance continues, we believe it is crucial to implement safeguards and reassess mandates based on actual outcomes, transparency, and alignment with DAO-wide values. Reducing the delegation now is a constructive step in that direction.
112
  • Proposal: Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For: Wind Down the MSS
  • Reasoning: We voted in favor of winding down the MSS. In our view, the current setup has proven to be operationally inefficient and structurally misaligned with the DAO’s evolving needs. The delays in transaction execution, driven by complex signer coordination across time zones and unclear accountability between roles, have limited the MSS’s effectiveness.
    Given that the Foundation already plays a key role in compliance and approvals, formally consolidating multisig responsibilities under their umbrella makes practical sense. It streamlines execution, ensures faster turnaround times, and aligns with the direction the DAO is taking as OpCo and AAE mature.
    We see this as a pragmatic step toward a more reliable and professionalized system, where execution can keep pace with the DAO’s commitments.
113
  • Proposal: Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We are voting FOR this proposal. This reallocation is a sound and efficient way to restore yield on previously deployed assets. The $3.5M in USDC was originally earning yield through STEP and was only converted to stablecoins due to the external shutdown of Mountain Protocol, not a strategic shift. Since STEP 2 has already been approved by the DAO, moving these idle funds into the same money-market strategy aligns perfectly with the original mandate, adds no new risk, and brings back ~4-5% yield with minimal operational effort.
114
  • Proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
  • Voting type & platform: Onchain - Tally
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: Our team has voted FOR this proposal. We believe this incentive framework builds on valuable lessons from past programs and presents a thoughtful, forward-looking approach. The structure and intent show clear alignment with the DAO’s long-term goals, and we’re confident in the capabilities of the team driving this initiative. We see strong potential in its execution and impact, and we’re excited to support its implementation.
115
  • Proposal: Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: As a team, we believe that enhancing the operational capabilities of the OpCo Foundation is a critical step towards achieving greater efficiency and alignment of incentives. We voted in favor of this proposal because the proposed changes will streamline processes, reduce unnecessary complexities, and better integrate the foundation’s activities with the broader goals of the community. This initiative represents an important evolution for the OpCo, positioning it to respond more effectively to the needs of our ecosystem while fostering a stronger partnership with all stakeholders involved. We see this as a positive move towards ensuring that our governance structures are robust and capable of supporting sustainable growth.
116
  • Proposal: Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations
  • Voting type & platform: Offchain - Snapshot
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: Our team believes that integrating the proposed features into our governance forum represents a strategic step forward. We voted in favor because we see these enhancements as an opportunity to improve user experience and foster greater participation in governance. The budget request is reasonable in light of the potential benefits, and we view this initiative as a valuable experiment that could pave the way for broader adoption if successful. We are looking forward to evaluating the outcomes of these changes and assessing their impact on our governance processes.