Constitutional - Extend Delay on L2Time Lock

[jameskbh]

I voted FOR this proposal as the benefits surpass the additional time it introduces.

[snowdot]

Gm, gm!

The results are in for the [Constitutional] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock off-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:

[Constitutional] Extend Delay on L2Time Lock

[APE]

We support this proposal. Although it will introduce delays in certain circumstances, we believe the increased security is a worthwhile tradeoff.

[X_0001]

Treasure ARC has voted in favor of this proposal. The increase in security and flexibility for the Security Council and for users is beneficial and moving the needle on the Stage 2 Rollup metrics is aligned with Arbitrum’s longer term goals.

[ITUblockchain]

We support this proposal. While the proposal has little impact on the Security Council, we believe it is a positive step for users. The extension will give users extra time to protect themselves from potential risks and plan their exit strategies more easily. This is a good step that will make Arbitrum users feel more secure. Additionally, the potential to change the red circle on L2beat to yellow is an important step for Arbitrum to move into a safer rollup phase.

[openzeppelin]

OpenZeppelin, the Security Member of the ARDC, reviewed this proposal for security risks. You may find our review at

Arbitrum L2 Time Lock Delay Proposal Security Review

OpenZeppelin, the Security Member of the ARDC, reviewed the Arbitrum L2 Time Lock Delay Proposal and its specifications. Summary If enacted, the proposal will increase the delay of constitutional proposals from 3 days to 8 days. The change only involves a modification of an existing configuration parameter and does not introduce any new functionality. Overview The Arbitrum DAO has a governance process whereby the community can vote on proposals fully on-chain. Two distinct kinds of proposals c…

[olimpio]

I voted in favor of extending the L2 time lock as it provides necessary flexibility to respond to critical situations.

[TodayInDeFi]

We voted FOR for this upgrade

Rationale:

• The extended time lock will apply exclusively to upgrades involving critical contracts. Given Arbitrum’s current maturity and stable growth, there should be no urgent need for such critical proposals to be passed quickly
• This proposal to increase the time lock delay strikes a reasonable balance between enhancing security and preserving the advantages of swift treasury proposals
• ADRC review is also in favor of the proposal
• The upgrade will help Arbitrum to have yellow rating on L2Beat from red in terms of the exit window:
  

[Euphoria]

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally Voting.

Increasing the timelock delay for core upgrades is a positive advancement that reflects the current path L2s are taking. Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research and analysis.

We vote in favour of this proposal.

The proposed increase in the timelock delay for core upgrades is a positive step, aligning with the direction L2s are moving towards. This change follows L2Beat’s recommendations, and the shift from red to yellow status is a good signal for Arbitrum.

We went through the L2Beat website and noticed that zkSync Lite already has a yellow slice, so joining them in this status would be beneficial.

We also believe it’s important to define emergency situations clearly and as much as possible with current knowledge. This will help the Security Council make more informed and deterministic decisions when needed.

[maxlomu]

Voted FOR this proposal on Tally following the previous rationale and the recommendations from the ARDC.

[kuiclub]

Safety is always the first priority

[Gabriel]

Vote For. extending the time lock will grant users a better timeline to analize changes and opt in or out if they decide in either way. This for me is an enhacement for the L2.

[chamadao]

Voted FOR on Tally

It’s a smart step towards enhancing Arbitrum’s security and governance.

[mcfly]

We support this proposal. It benefits users by providing more time to mitigate risks and plan exits, enhancing Arbitrum’s security perception. It marks progress towards a safer stage 2 rollup environment.

[paulofonseca]

voting For the current onchain proposal because this makes Arbitrum closer to become a Stage 2 Ethereum L2 network.

[0x_ultra]

I voted in favor for the same reasons that I mentioned for the Snapshot vote. You can find my voting rationale here: Constitutional - Extend Delay on L2Time Lock - #17 by 0x_ultra

[olimpio]

Regarding the Tally on-chain vote: Voted in favour for the reasons stated above.