[Constitutional] AIP: Automate Timeboost Proceeds Split

Proposals
1

Abstract

This proposal seeks approval to automate the Timeboost proceeds split on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, and distribute accrued rewards to the Arbitrum Developer Guild (ADG) via a constitutional vote, as per the already-passed and executed proposal to adopt Timeboost. Currently, all Timeboost bid proceeds are sent to the Arbitrum DAO treasury; the portion of Timeboost proceeds allocated to the ADG (3%) must also be sent via an onchain action. This process can be automated by introducing a fee splitter that forwards funds proportionally to the DAO Treasury and to the ADG address that is controlled by the Arbitrum Foundation (AF).

The ADG was established to recognize and support long-term contributors whose work would strengthen the Arbitrum technology, tooling, and infrastructure. For a more detailed update on the ADG, see page 27 in the AF’s 2025 Transparency Report.

Motivation

Timeboost was activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova in April 2025, introducing a new transaction ordering policy to capture some amount of MEV onchain (as opposed to having it leak offchain). As outlined in the Timeboost proposal, proceeds from the auction will be split between the DAO Treasury (97%) and the ADG (3%). In the initial implementation of Timeboost on both networks, 100% of proceeds are directed to the DAO Treasury. Periodically, 3% of these proceeds must be transferred to the ADG per the ratified proposal. This process must be repeated indefinitely (if left unaddressed), and requires a 30+ day process via an onchain vote each time this exercise is carried out.

Automating this fee split onchain is relatively straightforward. If implemented, this automated fee split will eliminate the periodic distribution process required of the DAO and also enable the ADG to receive Timeboost proceeds in a more timely manner. This can be accomplished with an adapted, audited version of the fee router contracts that the DAO relies upon today to collect and claim transaction proceeds for both networks.

This proposal seeks to enable this onchain automation and also distribute the 3% of Timeboost proceeds for the ADG and have accrued to the DAO Treasury thus far. As of May 11, 2026, Timeboost proceeds are 2,517.46 WETH; that translates to 75.52 WETH to be transferred to the ADG, or 3% of total proceeds. The exact amount of WETH to distribute will be determined at a later date when the onchain payload is prepared and date of onchain execution can be estimated more precisely.

Key Terms

Timeboost: The new transaction ordering policy enabled on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova that generates auction proceeds and forwards proceeds to the DAO Treasury; read the documentation here

DAO Treasury: The DAO-controlled addresses that currently receive 100% of Timeboost proceeds; you can find the treasury timelock address for Arbitrum One here and the fee router address on Arbitrum Nova here

Arbitrum Developer Guild (ADG): An initiative to incentivize and grow the set of core developers building Arbitrum technology; the ADG shall receive 3% of Timeboost proceeds per the ratified proposal

RewardDistributor: The smart contract that will be enable an onchain fee split between the DAO Treasury (97%) and the ADG (3%)

Specifications

Reward Distributor Deployment: A RewardDistributor contract will be deployed with the following parameters on Arbitrum One and on Arbitrum Nova.

Recipients (and distribution weighting):

Reward Distributor Activation: the DAO Upgrade Executors will call the ExpressLaneAuction contracts and update the beneficiary addresses to the newly deployed RewardDistributor contracts on the respective chains.

Accrued Proceeds Distribution: 3% of Timeboost proceeds that have accrued to the DAO treasury (0xbFc1FECa8B09A5c5D3EFfE7429eBE24b9c09EF58) up until the time this proposal is executed will be sent to the ADG address (0x6A075E9a02eef6978DD66cB63DE430a8c0C419E9) on Arbitrum One. This distribution action is the final step in the proposal payload and the exact amount will be determined and included at a later date when the onchain payload is prepared.

Steps to Implement

  1. Updated RewardDistributor contracts with WETH support will be deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova. These RewardDistributor contracts will specify and enact fee splits between the DAO Treasury and the ADG.

    • These contracts will also function as the new beneficiary addresses in the Timeboost ExpressLaneAuction contracts.
    • An audit report for the updated RewardDistributor contract can be found here.

  2. The Upgrade Executors on each chain will call the setBeneficiary function on the ExpressLaneAuction contracts, passing in the newly deployed RewardDistributor addresses and effectively forwarding future proceeds there.

    • Upon receipt, the RewardDistributor contracts will distribute future proceeds proportionally to the DAO Treasury and the ADG on both chains.

  3. Any Timeboost proceeds that have accrued to the DAO Treasury up until this point must be manually split between the DAO and the ADG. 3% of the WETH attributed to Timeboost will be transferred from the DAO treasury timelock to the ADG address as part of the proposal payload.

Timeline

The following dates are tentative and subject to change.

  1. May 27: publish proposal to the forum and respond to community feedback; requisite code has already been written, tested, and audited as of June 16, 2026.
  2. Jun 25: Offchain vote (temperature check) held.
  3. Jul 9: Constitutional onchain vote will commence, assuming a successful temperature check.
  4. Aug 10: should the onchain vote pass, the waiting period on L2 will last ~8 days after the onchain vote is finalized; the L2-to-L1 message and the L1 waiting period will take another ~10 days, at which point the onchain execution will be complete.
  5. Perpetuity: moving forward, Timeboost proceeds will automatically split between the DAO Treasury and the ADG address.
5 Likes
June 2nd, 2026 - Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call
38th GRC Call - Recording & Transcript
[Constitutional] AIP Fast Feed
Curia Delegate Communication Thread
Griff Green - Delegate Communication Thread
2

Voting FOR. It’s fair and straightforward, and it makes the process more automated.

Timeboost has been a great innovation for Arbitrum, counterbalancing tx fees that have been trending toward zero as the technology scales.

With crypto volatility significantly reduced, Timeboost revenue has been obviously trending downward.

image
image737×536 69.4 KB

But beyond that, the continued shift in volume toward perps and RFQs may represent a more structural challenge. I wonder whether this trend can be reversed, or there is a solution in progress to capture value from this new dynamic.

EDIT: Looks like a change is indeed under way [Constitutional] AIP: Transition Arbitrum One ordering policy to Priority Gas Auctions (PGA)

3

As MconnectDAO.eth, I view this proposal as a reasonable operationalization of the previously ratified 97/3 Timeboost proceeds split between the DAO Treasury and ADG, reducing recurring governance and execution overhead.

  • It would be useful to document the exact methodology and data sources used to compute the accrued 3% transfer amount, so that community members can independently verify the figure via dashboards or queries.

  • Please clarify the control model for the new RewardDistributor contracts (who can change recipients/weights and under which governance process), to avoid any ambiguity around future modifications of the split.

  • Given this becomes a continuous funding stream for ADG, I’d encourage explicit reporting on Timeboost-derived inflows and a periodic review point so the DAO can evaluate whether the allocation and automation remain aligned with its long-term priorities.

4

hey @MconnectDAO - Allan from Offchain here!

The RewardDistributor contracts will be owned and controlled by the DAO upon deployment. Updating the recipients or weights in any way will require an onchain proposal.

Please let me know if you have any other questions!

5

Update: RewardRouter Contract Addresses

During final preparation of the on-chain payload, a minor bug was identified in the RewardRouter contracts. Trail of Bits reviewed the fix, and the patched contracts have since been redeployed on Nova. The fix introduced a number of changes to prevent reward distributions from entering a denial of service (DoS) state in certain situations.

The final audit report is available on Arbitrum docs and on Trail of Bits’ publications.

The updated contract addresses for Nova are:

  • RewardDistributor: 0xeDF94c9C8873B6942800B31af7773a22969Ab93e

  • DAO Treasury Router (97%): 0x7C4C8eF1a81a99d7c6613A0150308CCe92B20F01

The proposal specifications will be updated to reflect these addresses ahead of the temperature check.

6

I support this proposal.

Beyond the specific Timeboost revenue split, I believe it reflects an important governance principle: once the DAO has reached consensus on a recurring and deterministic process, execution should be automated whenever it can be done safely and transparently.

Requiring governance to repeatedly approve the same operational action creates unnecessary overhead without adding meaningful oversight. In this case, the allocation itself (97% to the DAO Treasury and 3% to the ADG) has already been decided. Automating its execution simply ensures that governance decisions are implemented consistently and efficiently.

I also appreciate that this proposal combines automation with transparency. The distribution logic remains explicit, the contracts are audited, and the DAO retains the authority to modify the mechanism in the future through governance if priorities change.

Reducing operational friction while preserving governance control is, in my view, a healthy direction for the Arbitrum ecosystem.

7

Voting for.

The 3% split to the Developer Guild was already ratified, so all this really does is automate something the DAO otherwise has to redo by hand through a 30 day onchain vote every single time. Swapping a repetitive manual process for an audited fee splitter is exactly the kind of simplification I want to see us doing more of.

And I’ll be honest, I have a soft spot for this one because it helps builders. The Developer Guild is set to drive important work for the ecosystem, and I hate the idea of their funding being stuck waiting on the same vote again and again. Builders should be able to count on the resources they need and just keep building, not go chasing them every month. The less friction we put in the way, the better for all of us.

My one ask is that the splitter gets the same audit scrutiny as the fee routers it’s adapted from, so we keep things clean and safe while we make them simpler.

Zeptimus Delegate Communication Thread
8

Voted FOR;

Given that the ADG allocation plays an important role in supporting builders, strategic partnerships, and protocol onboarding, we support this proposal, as we consider it low-hanging fruit that eliminates unnecessary governance overhead for a process the DAO has already approved.

9

Merlyn Labs is voting FOR this proposal. Automated processes and less technical overhead for the win. Glad we’re supporting the ADG.

10

Voting YES.

We already agreed to send 3% to the Developer Guild, so of course there is no need to waste people’s time re-running a 30 day onchain vote to do the same thing over and over.

I’m honestly surprised we need a vote for this though… aren’t we changing the mechanism to PGA? Why are we bothering with this?

Griff Green - Delegate Communication Thread
11

This proposal accomplishes two things: activation of the RewardDistributor smart contract system for future Timeboost proceeds and a one-time sweep of historical Timeboost proceeds to the ADG.

Even if Timeboost is only active for another month, enabling the automated fee split eliminates the need for a future proposal that manually distributes whatever Timeboost proceeds have accrued during that month.

It is also possible that PGA proceeds will be routed to the same RewardDistributor contracts, but we (Offchain) are finalizing those implementation details. I will post a follow up comment here once we’ve reached a conclusion on re-using or replacing these contracts for PGA proceeds!

1 Like
12

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.

This proposal is quite clear, with the RewardDistributor doing the heavy lifting to distribute Timeboost revenues split between the DAO Treasury and the ADG. Even as the remaining Timeboost infrastructure is phased out in favour of PGA, this automation still reduces governance overhead for the DAO, and ensures AF/ADG can continue its operations smoothly. It creates a continuous funding stream and settles the accrued proceeds cleanly.

We’re in favour of this proposal, and voted FOR this proposal.

13

Cornell Blockchain is voting FOR this proposal because we support streamlining governance operations.

14

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.

We voted FOR.

This feels like a reasonable cleanup. It does not change the economics of Timeboost or introduce a new allocation. It simply makes the existing arrangement easier to operate and more reliable over time.

Before voting, we asked our Research Team to review the proposal and the contracts deployed so far. They found that the process looks sound and that the parameters match the deployed contracts. The one point they flagged is ownership of the RewardDistributor on Arbitrum One: at the moment, it is owned by an EOA, while the Nova deployment is already DAO-owned.

We do not see that as a blocker for this stage, since this is not the final executable payload. Still, it is an important detail to get right. The final payload should make sure that the Arbitrum One RewardDistributor ends up owned by the DAO. Otherwise, that EOA could potentially redirect future Timeboost proceeds, which would obviously not be acceptable.

For that reason, we will review the final executable payload once it is live on the on-chain stage, with particular attention to RewardDistributor ownership, recipients, weights, and the accrued proceeds distribution.