We have reviewed EIPs to be included (and not included) in the Callisto upgrade and we find the rationale behind each decision clear and articulated. We are particularly excited about the EIP-7702 change to be included on Arbitrum One and Nova for users on those chains as we believe the change will drastically improve the user experience over time.
We have a couple of questions:
Even reading the detailed document, it wasn’t clear what the “technical details” are and why this change better serves the Orbit chain customizability. Could you clarify them?
While it makes sense that the proposal currently targets only Arbitrum One and Nova, how will these changes be adapted and applied to Orbit chains going forward?
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
We support the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it ensures Arbitrum stays in sync with Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrades and key EIPs. This upgrade will improve functionality, security, and developer experience while keeping the ecosystem efficient and future-ready.
We don’t see anything particularly wrong with these changes and believe them to be helpful to the future of the Arbitrum network. All these EIPs are helpful and have been brought to attention either in other discourse domains or directly through Arbitrum forums (like the historical block hash change).
I am voting for this proposal because it will upgrade Arbitrum to support important new Ethereum features, like letting normal accounts run smart contracts and improving security with better cryptography. Arbitrum needs to correspond to his L1. And this proposal will help to implement it. It’s very good that the developers also don’t forget about Arbitrum Nova. I definitely vote for
I’m VOTING YES! This AIP keeps Arbitrum aligned with Ethereum’s innovations while strengthening our security and empowering builders. Who would vote against this?
I’m voting in favor of this proposal cause I feel like it only makes sense to support necessary upgrades like these, Arbitrum should keep up with EIPs.
Voting in favor. I have no technical background but from a logical POV/overall understanding it makes sense that some changes are needed with Pectra + I am trusting the AF on this.
The time lag struck me as odd, which is why I would love to see the question below answered.
The proposed changes help to bring Pectra relevant modifications to Arbitrum, and also advance account abstraction in the ecosystem. In this sense, I see no reason to oppose this initiative, as it seeks to bring new technical possibilities for users.
EIP-7702 is especially interesting from a defi perspective because it brings new capabilities to the wallet and smart contract ecosystem, specifically batching. I expect these to be applied to Orbit chains in a subsequent update.
The proposal has a low risk associated, with any kinks being ironed out during the test period in Devnets and Sepolia. Voting FOR this one.
Voting “For”, as I have stated in other upgrades like this - while I am not technically proficient enough to do a deep dive review on these types of things… I trust the teams involved with this project and the capable minds of the DAO to dive into those items. At a 10,000 foot glance, the upgrades seem worth implementing and I generally favor any upgrades that continue to keep Arbitrum at the forefront tech-wise.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I will just confirm my “Yes” vote on Tally. Nothing in my opinion has changed since February’s temp check
voting Abstain on the current offchain vote because I have no idea of the risks this upgrade will entail without seeing the results of an independent audit to the smart contract code. And I also think the governance process for this proposal has not been followed in the best way it could. I think the Arbitrum DAO delegates should be asked to vote, even on a temperature check, in as much of a fully fleshed out proposal, as possible. This proposal is not ready to be voted on by delegates, in my opinion, in the sense that if delegates vote against in this temp check, will the work on this upgrade stop? No, it won’t. So I don’t understand why delegates are being asked to vote on this proposal, at this point. After the code is complete and the audits are done, then it makes sense for delegates to decide on the risk vs. reward of upgrading the Arbitrum One and Nova contracts, with this proposal.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We are in favour of this proposal.
With the advent of Spectra and its technical changes, ArbOS Callisto aims to devise an upgrade that will definitely create added value for the ecosystem. Especially so for account abstraction applications. The utilisation of Spectra’s upgrade — incorporating transaction sponsorships for covering user gas expenses with auth signatures, batching transactions to eliminate additional user friction for using apps (like having to pay for approvals and do a trade), and privilege de-escalation — can reduce security risks for users.
Additionally, the other upgrades are very clear: EIP-2537 for improved security for applications, EIP-2935 serving the data retrieval of block hashes to configure on top of clients, and Stylus fix amount to a reasonable request.
Noting that there are technical considerations pertaining to the various environments (into Nitro) and sequence of implementations (for audits and test developments), we do believe that this effort is worthwhile and will be completed diligently. Therefore, we are for approval of the proposal.
I vote in favor of this proposal in the temp check, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to be ready for the Pectra fork on Mainnet. However, my on-chain vote will depend on analyzing—within my capabilities and relying on the assessment of technical experts—the progress of the outlined roadmap.
I will be voting FOR in Snapshot. I believe Arbitrum should continue to be aligned as much as possible with Ethereum, and we should also leverage the position Arbitrum has within the ecosystem in this regard.
We should thoroughly follow every upgrade made in Mainnet and be as prepared as possible for its correct implementation.
LobbyFi voted abstain on snapshot since none of the community pools reached the needed threshold, which is at 10% of the instant buy which has been chosen for this proposal.
This AIP brings essential Ethereum Pectra changes while maintaining Arbitrum’s unique optimizations. Plus, EIP-7702 is a game-changer for EOAs, enabling account abstraction natively so we were happy to support this update.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I’m excited about Pectra because I think it will significantly improve Arbitrum UX by reducing the need for multiple signatures to perform a single transaction and by allowing Dapps to enable more advanced functionality directly e.g. paymaster support.
Will the Arbitrum upgrade be delayed due to the mainnet upgrade suspension?
After two buggy test runs of Pectra, Ethereum’s biggest upgrade since 2024, the network’s developers decided to postpone the upgrade pending further tests