I voted FOR this proposal
As I wrote earlier, it’s cutting unnecessary and significant expenses for Arbitrum - there’s no longer a need to subsidize Nova, as recent upgrades have already brought substantial fee reductions
I have voted For this proposal. Layer 2 solutions are highly competitive, and I don’t see the point in continuing to spend resources to incentivize Nova. Resources should be focused as much as possible to remain competitive.
Also as many delegates suggest, I would also appreciate more clarity about where sit Nova in Arbitrum Strategy and if it should be deprecated.
We will support the removal of the Amortized Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova, as it eliminates inefficient subsidies, aligns cost recovery with actual network usage, and reflects Nova’s reduced strategic role in the evolving Layer 2 ecosystem. With the cost gap to Arbitrum One significantly narrowed by EIP-4844 and the growing adoption of Orbit chains, maintaining the cap is no longer justified. This change promotes sustainability, transparency, and better resource allocation across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
Removing the amortized cost cap on Nova makes sense given EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption. It aligns Nova’s costs with its current role and avoids unnecessary subsidies.
As mentioned earlier, we encourage clear communication with affected projects and batch posters, with timelines and dedicated channels to ensure a smooth transition and clarity on migration options to Arbitrum One or Orbit if needed.
I voted FOR on this proposal. As the chain does not have much competitive advantage anymore, it does not make sense to keep incentivising it.
I will be voting FOR on Snapshot as this proposal really seems like a no brainer due to Nova’s relatively low usage, TVL and popularity. It makes little sense to subsidize this, and if anything it’s a shame it hadn’t been passed before.
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal ends an outdated subsidy by letting Nova fees reflect real L1 costs, which is now only about 2x lower than Arbitrum One. We agree that expending more treasury to chase marginal savings no longer drives adoption because teams that need ultra-cheap capacity are moving to Orbit chains. Redirecting those funds to higher-impact initiatives will improve overall capital efficiency while users still enjoy low absolute gas fees.
I will be voting for this proposal because Removing Nova’s cost cap is a logical next step. With EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption shifting demand, this proposal ends an outdated subsidy and realigns Nova’s fees with its true role in the ecosystem. Teams seeking ultra-low costs now have better options via Orbit, making continued treasury spend here inefficient. We support this shift, as long as clear communication and smooth transitions are prioritized for affected teams.
I’m voting yes
Ending the subsidy is the first logical step, but we should consider sunsetting Nova all together.
Nova had its role, but the context shifted and holding on just to hold on doesn’t help anyone.
Subsidies should be earned, not assumed. If there’s real demand, it’ll show up without needing to prop it up. But I wonder if there is real demand?
I mean, $1400 in 24hr DEX volume? FOR THE WHOLE CHAIN?! The GIV token does better than that and its about charity.
We should probably sunset Nova like Polygon is doing with zkEVM, onchain fees are only the most obvious costs, there are countless other costs too, including opportunity costs of people that spend time maintianing a failed chain.
Makes sense to move on.
2 Likes
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
It does not make sense to continue subsidizing the use of Nova when its competitive advantage over Arbitrum One has diminished to the point of irrelevance due to blobs, and while its TVS and activity have been constantly decreasing.
If anything, the removal of the cap could either make Nova sustainable by allowing batch posters to recoup their costs or ultimately consolidate users to Arbitrum One and Orbit chains due to higher transaction fees.
1 Like
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting in favor to remove the cost cap. Below the rationale:
voting For on the current offchain vote because it doesn’t make sense to continue to subsidize or even maintain Arbitrum Nova. We should focus only on Arbitrum One, aka, Arbitrum.
Voting to remove the cost cap
Nova served its purpose, but it’s no longer relevant to the scaling landscape. No need to subsized a dead project, and if by chance it starts to come back then it is fair to let it do so under ‘its own power’ so of speak.
I’ve decided to vote in favor of this proposal. It seems like a pretty straightforward choice, given that Arbitrum Nova no longer delivers the expected advantages and now represents an ongoing cost for the ecosystem. Removing the cost cap feels like a necessary step.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
This is a no-brainer, we find no reasons to oppose the cost cap removal on Arbitrum Nova.
I have voted in favour of the proposal. Upon reading the explanation for killing the subsidy, I think it makes sense, especially given that the competitive adv of x20 cheaper txs is now ~x2. It doesn’t make much sense anymore to preserve these artificial discounts, users can either go to Orbit chains where teams can tweak gas rules or simply stay on Arbitrum One where the margins are already small as EIP-4844 did its job.
Voted FOR
1. Why I’m Voting FOR
- We’ve covered about 284 ETH in Nova subsidies so far (86 ETH back in fees vs. 401 ETH in L1 costs – see chart¹).
- Removing the cap means sequencer fees finally match real gas costs, so we’re not hiding the true economics.
- That capital can be put to better use—like targeted grants, dev programs, or new scaling experiments.
¹ Hex Dashboard (“Cumulative Net” curve shows a steeper drop after EIP-4844 in March 2024)
2. Marketing & Strategy Perspective
Ultimately these subsidies were a growth campaign likely created to incentivize teams to come to Arbitrum Nova and spur more on-chain transactions (I assume there was a more specific goal).
I’d love to see how this campaign actually performed and what learnings we can apply to potential subsidies on Orbit. I think there’s a lesson here: treat Nova incentives like any growth campaign—set clear spend → acquire → retain metrics and iterate fast.
Key points:
- Builder acquisition: Which incentives (fee discounts, grants, hackathons) actually drove teams to Nova?
- ROI benchmarks: How much ETH did we spend per new dApp, per incremental TVL, or per transaction?
- Qualitative feedback: As we’ve discussed, I’d love to see direct interviews with early builders to learn why they chose Nova.
Questions for growth/ROI:
- What KPIs (new builder count, active addresses, TVL lift) were we tracking, and what did they show?
- Of those teams who joined, how many eventually moved to Arbitrum One or Orbit, and why?
- Can we share these insights with the DAO to make Orbit-chain incentives more data-driven?
Thanks for the comment, @CastleCapital. You’re right that this proposal represents an operational adjustment to help reduce the financial burden on the AF while we reassess Nova’s position in the ecosystem.
Regarding your question about the longer-term strategy for Nova, its roadmap is still being decided.
Regarding your question about phased alternatives, we didn’t have this in mind
Thanks for your comment. The roadmap for Nova is still being decided. We don’t have any concrete answers to your question yet, besides what this proposal offers.
Thanks for the comment. Regarding Nova’s strategy, we are actively working through those considerations and want to provide builders with clear guidance. We will keep the community updated as these discussions progress.