Castle is an Arbitrum native research collective, with many of our original members migrating on Day 1 with GMX. We have been strong advocates of the chain and the possibilities its technology unlocks for applications ever since.
We have also been an active Arbitrum DAO delegate and contributor, involved as:
Long-Term Incentive Program Pilot (LTIPP) and STIP Bridge advisors, which has provided us with unique insights into incentives programs and how they are perceived both within the DAO and by protocols and users.
Member of the Multisig Signer Service (MSS)
Contributor to the ARB Staking Rewards Source working group — particularly focusing on licensing
Arbitrum-native protocol contributors — the members of our wider collective have held roles at protocols such as GMX, Rysk, Brahma, Pear Protocol, and Perpetual Protocol.
Forum Username: @CastleCapital Twitter: @castle__cap
2 Likes
September 2024 votes Snapshot votes Vote: DNV
Castle supports the proposal to extend the L2 Core TimeLock delay from 3 days to 8 days.
We believe that this change brings significant benefits to the Arbitrum ecosystem in terms of both security and user confidence.
Vote: DNV
Castle Capital was one of the STIP.b Advisors — this role was expanded based on the previous contributions as Advisors for the LTIPP program to support protocols with their STIP.b applications. This encompassed reflecting on STIP impact, setting realistic KPIs, and sparring on the incentive mechanisms and distribution of funds.
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each throughout the entire five-month program.
During the initial STIP, protocols had no established actor helping them throughout the application, resulting in cumbersome processes, delays, and a higher degree of proposals being incomplete or insufficient to move forward.
Part of our STIP.b evaluation included studying previous results from STIP, which provided us (and the protocols) with a better understanding of what worked or did not from previous incentive campaigns. Protocols also had to follow an application template where they themselves were asked to provide their feedback on STIP, which will be invaluable for the development of future incentive programs and whether they would change their distribution strategy from STIP.
Based on this, we’d evaluate the Addendum and provide feedback on what worked and what should be changed based on the reports provided.
Castle Capital has continued supporting protocols throughout the distribution of the incentives, working as point of contact for general support and helping them in case of desired changes to their mechanism of distribution.
As part of our role, we received positive feedback on our contribution from protocols involved in this program, stating that our support has been instrumental in preparing and submitting a complete application and securing the grant.
Thanks to the combined efforts of all the advisors, over 39 protocols successfully received funds.
Vote: DNV
We are in full support of the Event Horizon proposal. Empowering smaller ARB holders through collective voting is an innovative step towards increasing participation and fostering inclusivity in the Arbitrum DAO. The Voter Pass system, which enables individuals with lower capital to pool their voting power, aligns with the core values of decentralization and community engagement.
This proposal also addresses the critical issue of low voter turnout by introducing the Implicit Delegation model, which incentivizes governance participation based on commitment rather than capital. We believe this approach will bring more voices into the decision-making process, strengthening the DAO as a whole.
We look forward to seeing how Event Horizon enhances governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem and provides long-term value to the community.
Vote: For
Castle appreciates the efforts to address the DAO’s needs and has thoroughly reviewed the Phase II proposal. We will be voting Yes in support of the proposal but would like to request further clarification on a few key areas to ensure it fully aligns with the community’s best interests.
Budget Breakdown and Utilization of Funds
Broad Scope of Work
We appreciate the hard work that has gone into this proposal and look forward to further clarifications
Vote: Against
While we appreciate Pyth and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.
It is unfortunate, but we believe it is important to abide by the incentives detox. However, we will endeavour to ensure that future programs are designed to overcome the challenges associated with extensions. A well-considered, forward-looking program will address these issues, along with other design considerations that promote long-term success.
We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.
Vote: Against
While we appreciate Synthetix and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.
It is unfortunate, but we believe it is important to abide by the incentives detox. However, we will endeavour to ensure that future programs are designed to overcome the challenges associated with extensions. A well-considered, forward-looking program will address these issues, along with other design considerations that promote long-term success.
We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.
Vote: For
We fully support this proposal once the technical checks and balances are complete.
We believe that this process should then be standardised to allow future DAO support for projects migrating from L1 to Arbitrum. As always, let’s make this experience as frictionless as possible.
Vote: For
Castle’s voting in favour of this proposal as we believe that a well constructed incentives program is required to onboard developers and projects.
We’re particularly pleased to see the inclusion of tooling and education materials as we can’t expect to onboard new developers if they don’t have enough necessary tools, docs or reference material to get started building in a new paradigm.
We believe this sprint can help kickstart development, however there is a clear need for a longer term incentives program. As others in the thread have highlighted, we’d also be in favour of exploring RPGF to support this longer term, beyond this sprint.
Vote: Against
While we appreciate Aave and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.
It is unfortunate, but we believe it is important to abide by the incentives detox. However, we will endeavour to ensure that future programs are designed to overcome the challenges associated with extensions. A well-considered, forward-looking program will address these issues, along with other design considerations that promote long-term success.
We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.
Vote: Collect bids in ETH to treasury
We are in favor of adopting the Timeboost transaction ordering policy. This implementation will introduce several key benefits to the Arbitrum ecosystem :
Efficient Arbitrage : Timeboost will enable more efficient arbitrage opportunities within the network, helping to tighten price spreads and provide better trading experiences across decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and other protocols.Lower Infrastructure Burden : By optimizing the way transactions are ordered and processed, Timeboost will reduce the infrastructure burden on validators, ensuring more efficient resource usage and faster transaction throughput.New Revenue Stream for the DAO : A key benefit of Timeboost is its ability to collect bids in ETH for transaction ordering. This can generate a new and sustainable revenue stream for the Arbitrum DAO , strengthening the DAO’s long-term financial health while maintaining fair and efficient transaction processing.
We believe the introduction of Timeboost will be a valuable addition to the Arbitrum protocol, benefiting both the community and the DAO by enhancing the performance and economic incentives of the ecosystem.
Vote: DNV
We are in favor of allocating additional funds to cover the full one-year tenure for the STEP Program Manager. This decision is critical for ensuring continuity, stability, and avoiding operational disruptions to a program that has already proven to be a successful DAO initiative.
Key Points:
Timely Compensation : The manager should be paid their quoted amount. It is important to maintain the trust and accountability of external service providers by honoring the original USD-based contract.Utilizing Yield : Since the yield from the RWA portfolio is sufficient to cover the shortfall, using these funds for payment is the most logical step. This approach will allow us to avoid liquidating RWAs or re-launching another election process, both of which would incur additional costs and delays.Lessons for the Future : This situation offers a key learning opportunity for the DAO. Future proposals should include clearer processes for converting ARB to USD upfront to mitigate any issues arising from market volatility. Additionally, building a buffer into operational expenses could prevent future budget shortfalls.
We support moving forward without delay, collecting yield ASAP and ensuring that the program runs smoothly for the entire year, while learning from these challenges to improve proposal execution in the future.
Vote: Online / IRL-conference (no scholarships) / IRL-conference (scholarships) / IRL-separate (no scholarships) / IRL-separate (scholarships) / Do Nothing / Abstain
We are voting for this proposal as we recognize the potential benefits of bringing delegates together for an offsite.
However, we would like to note that this current process—of voting to research and then writing a proposal—might be more drawn out than necessary.
Instead of temperature-checking an idea that has already been informally discussed with delegates, we believe it would be more efficient to start with a structured brainstorming session. This approach would allow to refine and develop the concept collaboratively before moving to a formal vote, ensuring that the final proposal is well-considered and fully aligned with the needs of the DAO.
We support efforts to enhance delegate collaboration and look forward to seeing the results of this research. However, streamlining our process in the future could save time and resources, enabling us to focus on implementing impactful initiatives more swiftly.
Vote: DNV
We are in full support of the GovHack Core Hack Humanity event, particularly with the focused approach on Bangkok. This strategic focus is appropriate for maximizing the event’s impact and ensuring effective use of resources.
Key Points for Our Support:
Track Record of HackHumanity : The HackHumanity team has a proven history of executing successful hackathons, which gives us confidence in their ability to deliver a high-impact event for the Arbitrum community.Critical Delegate Buy-In : Delegate support is crucial for an event of this nature. We recognize the strong backing from delegates, which is essential for the event’s attendance and success and for ensuring that outcomes are aligned with the broader goals of the DAO.Integration of Community and Strategy : Merging community-building activities with strategic discussions into one event is an effective decision. It ensures that new stakeholders are instantly hit with the importance of strategic goals, making the event both meaningful and results-driven.
Key Consideration:
Ensuring Proper Preparation : While we support this initiative, we seek more clarity on how the organizers will ensure that the right participants are selected and are fully prepared for the strategy-focused elements of the event.
Overall, we believe this event has the potential to drive significant contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem, and we look forward to seeing it succeed with the support of the community and its delegates.
Vote: FOR DIP 1.5
We are strongly in favor of the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) v1.5 . This proposal represents a significant improvement in how delegate contributions are evaluated and rewarded, aligning incentives more closely with the quality and impact of participation rather than merely the volume of comments.
Key Points for Our Support:
Commitment to High-Quality Contributions : We fully support the shift towards a rubric-based evaluation system emphasizing meaningful, well-considered feedback. This approach will elevate the standard of governance within the Arbitrum DAO, ensuring that rewards go to those who contribute most effectively.Ongoing Feedback and Participation : We intend to continue providing high-quality feedback and rationale for our votes, fully aligning with the goals of DIP v1.5. The adjustments in scoring weights, particularly the emphasis on early and impactful feedback, align well with our commitment to thoughtful participation.Strategic Alignment and Budget : The proposed budget for additional administrative support and tools is well-justified. Effective program implementation will require these resources to ensure accurate and fair evaluation of delegate performance.
While we recognize concerns about the subjectivity introduced by the rubric, we believe that the overall benefits—particularly the focus on quality and strategic contributions—make v1.5 the right choice for the DAO’s future and that @SEEDGov is well-placed to be its leader.
Vote: DNV
We support allocating further funds to boost the foundation’s Strategic Partnerships budget, as we acknowledge the necessity of remaining competitive within the landscape.
However, we are wary of over-leveraging grants as a means to direct capital without any expectations or accountability. Rather than how much money projects have in their vault, the real difference is how these are spent. For this reason, we would like to see these partnerships established against clearly defined KPIs, which could then measure their success and be refined for the future (e.g., identified by the expected return on investment, boosted on-chain metrics, etc.).
Lastly, as @pedrob highlighted, we believe ensuring these strategic initiatives are followed up with the appropriate marketing support to maximize their impact and user awareness is important.
In alternative, we support exploring alternative solutions, such as what @Entropy proposed regarding the foundation vesting, to avoid further dilution.
Tally votes Vote: For
Vote: For
Vote: For
Security council Vote: DNV
Oct 2024 votes Snapshot votes Vote: For
Vote: For
We do not have any specific objections to TogetherCrew’s implementation of this research, considering that the DAO has no budgetary requirements tied to this proposal.
Overall, we believe this is an excellent contribution to the academic research on DAO conducted by researchers at TogetherCrew and the University of California, Santa Barbara, as well as potentially benefitting from findings that can share more profound insights on the Arbitrum DAOs.
We look forward to reviewing the research findings.
Vote: For – Use ENS txt records
We are generally very supportive of this proposal, particularly its potential to improve the user experience for both DAO operators and Arbitrum users. Enhancing the usability and accessibility of our governance processes is a step in the right direction.
Given that this proposal involves a technical implementation, we would like to see input from security service providers, whether they are part of the ARDC or external experts. Their assessments will be crucial in ensuring this integration is secure and aligns with the best practices for our ecosystem.
Additionally, while we recognize some errors in the formal process leading up to this proposal, we are willing to look past these in the interest of practicality. What matters most is the outcome and the value this initiative could bring to the Arbitrum DAO.
Vote: Abstain
We have decided to vote ABSTAIN for this proposal.
We believe that as it is, there are no clear guidelines for delegates to assess or evaluate contributions.
For this reason, we believe that someone with more knowledge on the matters at hand (LTIPP Council) should be responsible for evaluating applications and offering a sum to the applicants.
This is to ensure that funds are allocated properly according to contributions.
Vote: For
Streamlining our Events planning and budgetary considerations is valuable, and we at Castle support initiatives that provide greater efficiency in the planning, allocation, and utilization of funds.
We recognize the importance of working on a general framework to avoid redundancies by establishing a budget for DAO events. At the same time, we believe the DAO members should have a voice in assessing which events should get funded.
We agree that the earlier event proposals submitted to the DAO should also be included in the budget allocated to this proposal; it makes sense to do so with the one-delegate gathering and the three ecosystem growth events outlined in the proposal.
At the same time, we recognize the importance of building local communities through local meetups, which could be more cost-effective.
In addition to the details outlined, we would also like to see reports on the performance of each organized event at a later date to review the effectiveness of this method of operation.
Vote: For, Fund with 1.73M
The ARDC has proven to be a positive addition to the DAO by presenting much-needed data on DAO governance and proposal effectiveness.
We welcome V2 as an improvement on the previous version. In fact, we support closer collaboration and the presence of the ARDC within proposals to ensure there is no information asymmetry and that, when needed, proposals are accompanied (and supported) by data from inception.
As part of this process, we believe that the ARDC should also be open to participation from wider actor ecosystems (e.g., there should, in our opinion, be more than one service provider member for each vertical, especially research) to support its broader mandate—either a group of three members with different niches or an RFQ process per research job.
In particular, as a research collective Castle expresses its interest in becoming a Research member.
Last but not least, while we believe that participants in the ARDC have fulfilled their mandate with honor, we believe that the reports and data produced need better visibility. A large part of this should involve including plans for marketing and communication to ensure that the insights found are known and easily accessible so they can be better turned into actionable improvements.
Due to the above, we do not support Term 2 for ARDC in the current form.
After re-considering the updated proposal we have decided to vote FOR (Fund with 1.73M USDC + Council).
We believe that the ARDC v1 has done ample work to support delegates in their research and decision making and appreciate the improvements made in v2.
It is difficult for us to have a complete view of and opinion on the budget as it has note been linked to potential deliverables.
We do still believe that there should be multiple Research members in order to provide a more rounded and holistic view of things that can sometimes be viewed through a number of lens (unlike security and risk).
Vote: Abstain
We are voting ABSTAIN on the proposal due to being a named member of the Pilot Council.
We knew this would be a interesting debate with widely differing views which has not disappointed, and we appreciate all delegates for expressing their views.
Vote: For
Vote: For
Tally votes Vote: DNV
Vote: For
Vote: For
Vote: For
Vote: For
Vote: For
Vote: For
Vote: For
Security Council
November 2024 votes Snapshot votings Vote: For
We are in favour of this proposal, as we agree in principle with the need for such programs to effectively implement ideas from hackathons and stimulate innovation in the ecosystem.
We’d like to see this fit a more long-term view with the creation of a process/framework for such incubation programs—making them accessible to everyone and aligning the interests with the Arbitrum DAO’s long-term vision.
Vote: Against
After much internal deliberation, we have voted against this proposal.
It wasn’t an easy decision and one that we didn’t take lightly. The balance between our desire to ensure fairness for those within the Arbitrum community and setting a bad precedent made this an even harder decision. In the end, we voted against setting a negative precedent where compensation is made based on a dollar value when an ARB amount was committed.
Vote: DNV
We are in FAVOUR of adopting a Code of Conduct to improve the operations of the Arbitrum DAO.
However, we share similar concerns that other delegates have highlighted.
In particular, we believe more information needs to be presented in terms of the clear procedures for monitoring and accountability, as well as “hard enforcement” (e.g., how to enforce a COI for a delegate, an organism, or a framework to proceed in case of malicious behavior). This is necessary to avoid situations where proposals have been approved and there is no designated entity to monitor - while anyone can bring a violation forward we believe it is important the incentives are aligned and we ensure the creation of an overall framework on this part as well.
Furthermore, there may be an issue around the re-delegation of voting power away from bad actors (who might have infringed the code of conduct or COI). Perhaps this could be analysed within the context of stARB and other delegator incentive mechanisms to link delegation and staking.
Vote: For
The proposal addresses several pressing issues hindering the DAO’s efficiency and growth potential. By establishing the Treasury Management and Growth Management committees, Arbitrum DAO can strategically manage its assets to ensure operational stability and foster ecosystem expansion.
This proposal is a comprehensive and well-considered approach to optimizing the Arbitrum DAO’s treasury management. We at Castle are in favour of this, with some caveats:
We understand the need to appoint members with the right skills and experience to the specific committees. However, a process should be in place to propose and vote out committee members to ensure the governance process continues to be upheld.
Regarding the allocation of ARB and ETH now without a defined budget, we suggest a timeline be included in this proposal when the respective committees will revert with a budget breakdown and schedule for regular updates on planned budget utilization.
The plan for converting ARB tokens into stables should also be a point for the committee responsible to revert to the DAO prior to execution.
How will the committees under Treasury Management be aligned with other initiatives?
There should be a performance component to the Committee compensation and not solely be reliant on a fixed fee… we want to ensure the committee is incentivized to achieve the best possible result for the funds managed
This proposal proposes too many shortcuts, and more needs to be detailed out and verbalized to mitigate and potentially address potential risks by selecting this path forward. We look forward to a response clarifying the above concerns.
Vote: For
We are in favour of this proposal, as we agree in principle with the need for such programs to effectively implement ideas from hackathons and stimulate innovation in the ecosystem.
We’d like to see this fit a more long-term view with the creation of a process/framework for such incubation programs—making them accessible to everyone and aligning the interests with the Arbitrum DAO’s long-term vision.
Vote: Against
After much internal deliberation, we have voted against this proposal.
It wasn’t an easy decision and one that we didn’t take lightly. The balance between our desire to ensure fairness for those within the Arbitrum community and setting a bad precedent made this an even harder decision. In the end, we voted against setting a negative precedent where compensation is made based on a dollar value when an ARB amount was committed.
Tally votings Vote: For
Vote: For
December 2024 votes Snapshot votings Vote: Abstain
gm @danielo , thank you for the proposal.
We think it’s valuable for the DAO to have its own research conducted in this area and to ensure we get the right kind of report.
On the proposal specifically we have the following feedback:
We are unsure whether the focus should be on builders who have already selected Arbitrum because the report will likely be skewed toward survivorship bias. It’s not as essential for us to understand why builders have selected Arbitrum because OCL or AF should be …
Vote: Against
GM @AlexLumley , we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.
We agree there is a need for an overall data collation process to gain better insight into the progress of DAO initiatives, but we’re not sold on the proposal in its current form. It seems to add more bureaucracy to the process than may be efficient.
There is also a lack of clarity on the final form of this report and what tangible benefits it provides the D…
Vote: For with 5 Domains
Castle has voted FOR Renew with 5 Domains on Snapshot. We feel that the program has had positive impact for Arbitrum and are supportive in extending it.
Vote: Against
Castle agrees on the importance of facilitating governance onboarding. We are very well familiar with the intricacies of the DAO and this is surely a positive addition.
We have a few comments on this:
Is there more information on the demand for these analysts from protocols? and why do they need so much oversight?
are there any successes and findings from V1 that can be leveraged to refine the scope of this proposal?
Why has the sample been chosen as 20 analysts? we’d love to see a program op…
Vote: Research : 100% DefiLlama Research & Castle Capital, Risk : 100% Nethermind, Security : 100% OpenZepellin, Supervisory Council : 49.5% Pedro (Comms), 49.5% James (Comms), 1% Tamara (Ops)
Our voting rationale is as follows:
Research: 100% DefiLlama Research & Castle Capital
Risk: 100% Nethermind
Security: 100% OpenZepellin
Supervisory Council: 49.5% Pedro (Comms), 49.5% James (Comms), 1% Tamara (Ops)
We have voted for the above because we believe they are the best fit for the job, have the correct expertise, understand the challenges that the DAO faces and are well placed to carve out solutions.
We would like to thank all the applicants for their work and dedication and ho…
Tally votings
