ChamaDao’s main communication thread for Arbitrum DAO governance votes, offchain and onchain.
Forum Username: @chamadao @chamadelegates chamadao.eth chamadao.eth chamadao.eth
Sept - Oct Constitutional AIP - Extend Delay on L2Time Lock
Platform: TallyVote: For
Rationale:
[Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator 1
Platform: Snapshot
Rationale:
An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO Platform: SnapshotVote: For
Rationale:
It’s a simple and effective way to improve access to Arbitrum DAO’s data without needing extra funding or major changes to the existing smart contracts. Plus, it keeps things flexible—using text records allows for easy updates without requiring an on-chain vote every time. This feels like a practical move to help streamline how we manage important DAO information while keeping it transparent and decentralized.
Research on context and retention Platform: SnapshotVote: For
Rationale:
Based on the answers given by @danielo , we are satisfied, as we had similar concerns to those raised by other delegates.
The open-source nature and focus on analyzing only public data ensures transparency while minimizing any privacy concerns. We also appreciate the research-driven approach, especially the collaboration with academic institutions, which adds credibility to the analysis.
Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum Platform: TallyVote: For
Rationale:
Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget
Platform: TallyVote: Against
Rationale:
Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 Platform: SnapshotVote: Against
Rationale:
Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program Platform: SnapshotVote: Against
Rationale:
Fund the Stylus Sprint
Platform: TallyVote: Against
Rationale:
This year is off to a good start so far.
We have voted FOR the Stable Treasury Endowment Program phase 2, and you can see our rationale in the thread:
We have voted FOR this proposal. It was a good example of how the DAO can do a reasonable and competitive RFP for key services and continuing the program forward makes sense. We would like to have continued oversight and reporting from the relevant teams as this initiative progresses.
Where can we see the latest updates and information relevant to this program?
We have also voted FOR the BOLD validator program:
Voting FOR this proposal.
Adding additional security and censorship resistant capabilities with withdraws is a no-brainer, especially as rollups start to differentiate themselves between fully decentralized and more app-chain like.
Opening to additional validators is also a good move and will hopefully bring more interest into this necessary role as well as new actors to the community.
While going with Infura is fine, we would like to see some additional information on how success on this pro…
Additional governance activity for the month is summarized here.
We voted FOR the Grants watchdog program:
We’ve voted in favor of this proposal, which hopefully is deployed to return misused funds back to the DAO. Making the program open to the community should incentivize good actors to find examples of misuse for reporting while discouraging bad actors from misusing funds.
However, we think this doesn’t get to the root of the problems with the DAO, which relate much more to general overspending and bad strategy. We also encourage the community to remove the need for such policing by correctly all…
We’ve voted FOR Defining the DAO’s interim Goals.
We are voting FOR this proposal. The DAO needs strategic direction and hopefully this initiative can work to provide some of this for the community while streamlining operations.
We strongly recommend that a focus be put on how best to allocate resources and diminish spending. We will continue to push this agenda in our voting and communications.
We also voted in all of the allocator elections. Votes and rationale are found in the relevant thread:
Sharing here our votes for the Domain Allocator Election:
New Protocols and Ideas - TodayInDeFi: We voted for this good research team who has been putting out dedicated content and is on the front lines of DeFi to have a great perspective on what is working and not. (disclosure: we are subscribers).
Dev Tooling on One and Stylus - Juandi: His prior experience is a plus and we think there is a admirable track record of good allocation and positive feedback from other members of the community.
E…
We also recently provided feedback on sponsoring ETH Paris, which we are against.
We are not in support of this proposal. There is already work being done in the DAO from multiple teams on events, which we think is already too much spent on this activity without much clear additional value.
We will vote NO on this proposal if it comes up, as in line with our continued stance against wasteful spending.
We continue to encourage the DAO to be selective about how it spends resources.
In line with this, we voted against the Arbitrum Hub proposal, following feedback provided early in the proposal process:
We’re quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven’t particpated in previous rounds of feedback.
First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from…
February voting and rationale will be updated in this post over the course of the month.
Voted FOR Nova fee swap from timeboost.
We will vote yes on this. Returning the funds to be productive for the DAO is a simple decision.
Further information about timeboost and it’s benefits / downsides after some time in production will be most welcome. Where can we best find this information? A single location for this kind of info on the DAO would be helpful.
We have voted on chain for the following proposals.
Voted FOR on STEP 2.0 continuation, as signaled with the snapshot vote and with no change in rationale.
Voted AGAINST creating OpCo. We have provided feedback in the relevant form thread:
We are voting AGAINST on this proposal.
Our reasoning is that such an initiative should start smaller and with a smaller budget, allowing time to iterate and make clear objectives, see results then scale up the program over time.
We should take example from other successful DAOs where service providers have small budgets and are aligned with the overall growth of the DAO, then paid for results.
For example, 25 million ABR is over $10 million. That is more than all of the non-technical service…
We voted AGAINST the Stylus extension, just like we voted against the original proposal.
When the original proposal for the Stylus Sprint was posted, we said this:
There were no clear deliverables and goals, which is why we voted against then. Now, there is a further proposal to extend the budget. This suggests there was no clear budget as well for the original program. This is not how the DAO should be spending funds, and is another example of what we have been regularly saying: “too much spending with too little impact.”
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
We voted AGAINST the Growth Circles Event Proposal. Our rationale is that this is continued unnecessary spending that is better served under specific service provider or intiative budgets that already exist.
We voted FOR the ArbOS version 40 proposal as it is an important technical upgrade to the network.
We voted FOR the Arbitrum Audit Program. While the budget is likely excessive, if the DAO is to spend on things, best that is spending on enhancing security across the network and supporting builders.
We voted AGAINST the Stylus grant increase during the on-chain vote, following our previous rationale presented above.