# \[Constitutional\] AIP: Stylus Activation Contract

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-stylus-activation-contract/31605>\
**Category:** Proposals\
**Created:** [October 23, 2026, 6:48pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-stylus-activation-contract/31605 "2026-10-23T18:48:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alex17hourslab](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@alex17hourslab](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/alex17hourslab)\
**Post date:** [October 26, 2026, 10:19am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-stylus-activation-contract/31605/2 "2026-10-26T10:19:32Z")

</div>

Before the on-chain vote, could the Foundation publish the proposed activation Terms of Use, or at least the criteria for issuing or withholding signatures, a target turnaround after a passing audit, and an appeal or escalation path? The post says the full Terms will be published if the AIP is approved, while the signing delegation has no automatic expiry. Seeing the operating rules before voting would help delegates weigh the chain-liveness benefit against the access and delay costs for builders.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-stylus-activation-contract/31605)._