# Castle Delegate Communication Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Statements\ **Tags:** delegation, governance, delegate-statements\ **Created:** [November 13, 2024, 4:18pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/castle-delegate-communication-thread/27522 "2024-11-13T16:18:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![CastleCapital](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/castlecapital/32/16535_2.png) [@CastleCapital](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/CastleCapital)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2024, 10:05pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/castle-delegate-communication-thread/27522/3 "2024-11-13T22:05:42Z")
# **Oct 2024 votes** ## **Snapshot votes** ### [[Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xaa831b9306c3ec4f4a9b9731e7c445e540e5a24461a79f1166cb8dcdfa692d09) **Vote: For** > [@AIP: Whitelist Infura Nova Validator](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/29): > > We are voting in favor of this proposal. > Infura has demonstrated to be a trusted provider, so let’s solve this oversight for Nova’s benefit. ### [Research on context and retention](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x23985f3bb58758f0f43c5248085f6b7f1783c8e205604262336d043558aeca0c) **Vote: For** > [@Research on context and retention](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/research-on-context-and-retention/26807/44): > > 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. ### [An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x7232f2c1d1da127cb65ee6036fc52ed6fc02540aaf6cf79a3045b6031e819a35) **Vote: For – Use ENS txt records** > [@Team #6: An (EIP-4824 powered) daoURI for the Arbitrum DAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/team-6-an-eip-4824-powered-daouri-for-the-arbitrum-dao/25371/36): > > 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. ### [LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x817ca6edf6d7e5c9fd5c9839cdd266c600054a443169fdb577bc7567f70073f0) **Vote: Abstain** > [@LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ltipp-retroactive-community-funding/26903/48): > > 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. ### [Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdfe7bf7e5bc227fc06765f37d9d9ecd1371e637b93b574ae4cc4c1d345cd648f) **Vote: For** > [@Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/13): > > 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. ### [(V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc9fc6b61c7e13a4645937937600397e496a3f4703a8f4d00e11c0f641d86ce9f) **Vote: For, Fund with 1.73M** > [@\[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] - Arbitrum Research and Development Collective \[Term 2\]](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-term-2/26922/6): > > 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. > [@\[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] - Arbitrum Research and Development Collective \[Term 2\]](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-term-2/26922/60): > > 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). ### [[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xe41fa9b0999dbd9276f7e4474e575883717020128b80dc6bd27b75ba5bd6420c) **Vote: Abstain** > [@\[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-token-swap-pilot-program/27106/60): > > 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. ### [GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for Tim Chang](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x7434c3c10da39c52503edf0080337b7fad3f7e33e87dac952f7bfa7c111e99ba) **Vote: For** > [@Reconfirmation of GCP Council Appointees](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reconfirmation-of-gcp-council-appointees/27142/48): > > Voted to re-confirm both appointees. ### [GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for John Kennedy](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x63dd46900098540b321d48dc1bdcc09cc8cb7cb0dcc85ceb81dceac812b86e06) **Vote: For** > [@Reconfirmation of GCP Council Appointees](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/reconfirmation-of-gcp-council-appointees/27142/48): > > Voted to re-confirm both appointees. * * * ## **Tally votes** ### [UPDATED - Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/70429238801539452185774644949439873171403711884919863798646613157877144482819?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: DNV** ### [[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/93496910583545921039254255671954964968329693484106479494661805749408858477569?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote ### [Constitutional AIP - Extend Delay on L2Time Lock](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/27888300053486667232765715922683646778055572080881341292116987136155397805421?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote ### [[Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/78608365328815179822381240433375943106975722017227920505592824878237374730465?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote ### [Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/56768509231150680433760428191516666361790213029100482092064768634784370622764?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote ### [ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/96690486288059875871645030622562174419564010435288438848687174619767247452877?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote ### [[Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/7979895167029508946638584765496434407327098393519089113101189960001594458109?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote ### [Fund the Stylus Sprint](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/24926593791565028016457688578136747185250074804329950986605484216603582190563?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** Confirming previous snapshot vote * * * ## **Security Council** ### [Member Election - Round 2](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council/election/2/round-2) > [@September 2024 Member Election Phase](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/september-2024-member-election-phase/27156/8): > > We decided to vote for the 3 candidates that our 4-person delegate group could find full consensus on: > > - gzeon > - Emiliano > - Dedaub --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/castle-delegate-communication-thread/27522)._