# \[CONSTITUTIONAL\] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Tags:** proposal\ **Created:** [March 3, 2025, 9:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617 "2025-03-03T21:13:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SpikeWatanabe.eth](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/spikewatanabe.eth/32/14304_2.png) [@SpikeWatanabe.eth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SpikeWatanabe.eth)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 12:29pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/44 "2025-03-20T12:29:10Z")
> [@paulofonseca](#): > > you mean @offchainlabs guidance? Yes, certainly, sorry for the typoo ---
**Author:** ![PGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pgov/32/11870_2.png) [@PGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/PGov)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 4:44pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/45 "2025-03-20T16:44:09Z")
This vote is pretty straight forward. Integrating Sky Custom Gateway contracts would enhance flexibility and interoperability on Arbitrum. The only concerns we see/highlighting are: - Security: Are there specific audits or security reviews that the Sky contracts have undergone? Clarifying this could help build confidence in the proposed changes. - Impact on Users: Would there be any noticeable impacts on end-users, particularly in terms of UX improvements or transaction costs? Assuming these are in line, we think approving this would: - Enhanced Interoperability: Registering Sky Custom Gateway contracts would increase compatibility across various token bridges and applications, promoting smoother cross-chain interactions. - Increased Flexibility: Custom gateways empower developers by allowing more tailored, efficient transaction routing and can encourage innovation within the ecosystem. - Ecosystem Growth: Facilitating custom solutions attracts more developers and projects to Arbitrum, strengthening the network’s position as a leading L2 solution. Overall, assuming technical security, we see no reason as to why this should be denied. ---
**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ezr3al/32/14760_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/EzR3aL)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 7:43pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/46 "2025-03-20T19:43:49Z")
Supporting this proposal with a YES. The sky stablecoin is a net benefit for Arbitrum, and the technical integration does not inherit any risks. ---
**Author:** ![danielM](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/danielm/32/12873_2.png) [@danielM](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/danielM)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 9:06pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/47 "2025-03-20T21:06:39Z")
so i vote FOR on the snapshot, my position remains the same: [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router - #8 by danielM](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/8) ---
**Author:** ![0xTALVO.ETH\_MTY](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0xtalvo.eth_mty/32/10365_2.png) [@0xTALVO.ETH\_MTY](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0xTALVO.ETH_MTY)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 6:33am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/48 "2025-03-21T06:33:38Z")
I just cast my vote in favor on Snapshot by the reason I mention before: > [@0xTALVO.ETH\_MTY](#): > > I am in favor of this proposal. It seems like a win-win for Arbitrum and SKY. This partnership will strengthen the ecosystem, serving as a “simple yet crucial technical solution” to improve interoperability and the user experience on Arbitrum. I look forward to seeing the detailed implementation timeline. I trust the project and its transparency, as ChainSecurity has established an impressive track record as an auditor for high-profile blockchain projects. One of their most notable successes is the audit of the MakerDAO protocol. On the other hand, Cantina has demonstrated its expertise in auditing blockchain projects, such as its work with Aave, one of the leading decentralized lending protocols. ---
**Author:** ![SpikeWatanabe.eth](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/spikewatanabe.eth/32/14304_2.png) [@SpikeWatanabe.eth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SpikeWatanabe.eth)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 7:52am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/49 "2025-03-21T07:52:27Z")
Thank you everyone for your comments and questions, your feedback is much appreciated, snapshot voting is now live. [https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdb22a77942eddfea9c826790ac03c3e54a34716c0a9bde846399cffe6046d256](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdb22a77942eddfea9c826790ac03c3e54a34716c0a9bde846399cffe6046d256) Please cast your votes. ---
**Author:** ![lobbyfi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/lobbyfi/32/11244_2.png) [@lobbyfi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/lobbyfi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 9:55am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/50 "2025-03-21T09:55:38Z")
**LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal** LobbyFi sees this proposal as one that benefits the whole Arbitrum ecosystem will therefore make the auction available. We do not expect any particular actor to be incentivised to acquire the voting power instantly, and since there is no direct monetary aspect to the proposal, we will set the instant buy price arbitrarily at 10 ETH. ---
**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 1:23pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/51 "2025-03-21T13:23:12Z")
I voted FOR this proposal. This is nice to have > [@SpikeWatanabe.eth](#): > > ensuring users receive the official token versions when they use the Router contracts through the Arbitrum Bridge UI. All audit reports were provided > [@SpikeWatanabe.eth](#): > > We’ve had the code for the Sky custom gateways audited by ChainSecurity and Cantina. If you’d like to dive into the details, you can check out their reports here: > > [arbitrum-token-bridge/audit/20241009-ChainSecurity\_MakerDAO\_Arbitrum\_Token\_Bridge\_audit.pdf at master · makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge · GitHub](https://github.com/makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge/blob/master/audit/20241009-ChainSecurity_MakerDAO_Arbitrum_Token_Bridge_audit.pdf) > > [arbitrum-token-bridge/audit/20241023-cantina-report-maker-arbitrum-token-bridge.pdf at master · makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge · GitHub](https://github.com/makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge/blob/master/audit/20241023-cantina-report-maker-arbitrum-token-bridge.pdf) > > On top of that, we also used Certora to formally verify the code. You can explore all the formal verification specifications here: > > [arbitrum-token-bridge/certora at master · makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge · GitHub](https://github.com/makerdao/arbitrum-token-bridge/tree/master/certora) And OCL and Sky are [aware of and ready to implement it](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdb22a77942eddfea9c826790ac03c3e54a34716c0a9bde846399cffe6046d256). ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/6/66435e5277fac47ec5cf5c6a8a158e78561e6101.png) It would be useful to announce somewhere in the proposal that StableLab (or the author) was proposing this on behalf of Sky. That would save some time and a few questions. **A note not completely related to the proposal:** A few delegates mentioned that we would benefit from a framework/standard for situations like this. I believe a template would suffice (we could pin it in the forum). That would be one of the categories we could create to make the proposals easier to interact with. ---
**Author:** ![BlockworksResearch](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/blockworksresearch/32/14962_2.png) [@BlockworksResearch](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/BlockworksResearch)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 3:00pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/52 "2025-03-21T15:00:38Z")
Blockworks is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. We’re happy to see an integration of Maker/Sky deployed on Arbitrum, especially as its straightforward and will contribute to the adoption of the network. We believe this proposal is relatively safe so long as procedure was followed from last time: > [@\[CONSTITUTIONAL\] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/3): > > From our perspective, this seems like a largely harmless proposal. We’ve done something similar before with the Rari protocol in the past. There may need to be an audit conducted from the AF after/before the temperature check goes live if we follow the process established from last [time](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/enhancing-multichain-governance-upgrading-rari-governance-token-on-arbitrum/26096/74) ---
**Author:** ![Zeptimus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/zeptimus/32/5471_2.png) [@Zeptimus](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Zeptimus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 3:58pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/53 "2025-03-21T15:58:16Z")
> [@\[CONSTITUTIONAL\] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/7): > > Thanks for the proposal—this looks like a win-win. I want to echo the audit sentiment and ensure we don’t run into any issues. Is the Sky team committed to maintaining and upgrading this integration if needed? For how long? Long-term support is key to ensuring this remains a reliable and efficient solution for the Arbitrum ecosystem. If yes, this integration seems like a solid step forward. Im voting for this proposal, its a clear win-win, thanks for clarifying my concerns @SpikeWatanabe.eth. ---
**Author:** ![TodayInDeFi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/todayindefi/32/13505_2.png) [@TodayInDeFi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/TodayInDeFi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2025, 4:34am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/54 "2025-03-22T04:34:32Z")
Voting ‘FOR’ this proposal on Snapshot. A lot of our initial concerns seem addressed. Beyond improving the bridging experience, I see a lot of potential for USDS and sUSDS to enhance Arbitrum’s DeFi ecosystem. Picture GMX using sUSDS for yield-bearing collateral or Pendle splitting USDS for fixed yields. It would be great if Sky can look into collaborating with Arbitrum-native protocols to explore these opportunities. Additionally, given the gateway’s reliance on Arbitrum’s messaging layer, a gas cost comparison—perhaps against CCTP or similar bridges—would be great. One last thing: I’d like to propose Sky provide a 3-month post-launch report with metrics like bridged volume and Spark adoption to quantify the impact. This proposal offers good strategic value, and we’re quite supportive. ---
**Author:** ![Euphoria](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/euphoria/32/14303_2.png) [@Euphoria](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Euphoria)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 11:51am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/55 "2025-03-24T11:51:32Z")
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. As mentioned in our [previous comment](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/29), we’re supporting this proposal as it improves the current bridging experience without introducing new risks or costs to the DAO. We also believe this kind of update doesn’t always need to go through a full proposal process. A more efficient path could be explored in the DAO allowing Offchain Labs or the Foundation to handle similar requests for which they are capable for a fixed term, with clear reporting. This would reduce the governance load for the delegates while maintaining transparency. That said, we support this proposal and believe it’s a practical, win-win step for both Arbitrum and the Sky team. ---
**Author:** ![cp0x](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/cp0x/32/5455_2.png) [@cp0x](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/cp0x)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 1:39pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/56 "2025-03-24T13:39:31Z")
I vote FOR this proposal. There are some doubts about the necessity of this step. After all, to be honest, there are many bridges that will support USDS due to its large distribution. You have to understand that we made a bridge for RARI because they were transferring the management of their chain to Arbitrum and this was the only correct approach to such a transfer of tokens from one chain to another. In this case, there is no such need. If you look at the big picture, then this vote is providing SKY and USDS with Arbitrum reputation. ---
**Author:** ![0xAlex](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0xalex/32/5325_2.png) [@0xAlex](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0xAlex)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 6:22pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/57 "2025-03-24T18:22:36Z")
I’m voting **FOR** this proposal because, as several delegates have pointed out, I believe it creates a win-win partnership that will amplify Arbitrum’s network effect. ---
**Author:** ![danielo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/danielo/32/5539_2.png) [@danielo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/danielo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 7:19pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/58 "2025-03-24T19:19:10Z")
Voting FOR for the reasons outlined here > [@\[CONSTITUTIONAL\] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/32): > > relatively low risk (no user funds can be lost) as I understand, correct? (worst case users have to send fun backs to mainnet and then bridge again) So in favour although I do have some concerns about how to manage things like this moving forward if the volume of requests increases (something to discuss another day) ---
**Author:** ![Griff](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/griff/32/964_2.png) [@Griff](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Griff)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 8:43pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/59 "2025-03-24T20:43:32Z")
> [@SpikeWatanabe.eth](#): > > Hey @griff, we appreciate your concerns, please kindly note, that under the hood of this proposal both OCL and SKY were collaborating on this work, so both entities are fully aware of this situation and amount of work needs to be done to implement it. What I was saying is the OCL should be leading or at the very least, quickly supporting proposal’s like this,so you both could save some time and simplify this process. That being said it’s a no brainer, I’m voting for this proposal, if the OCL supports it so do I. ---
**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2025, 10:11pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/60 "2025-03-24T22:11:08Z")
hey @SpikeWatanabe.eth is it possible to have a public acknowledgment by @offchain here in this thread, that they are indeed supporting the implementation of this proposal? ---
**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 10:27am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/61 "2025-03-25T10:27:17Z")
voting **FOR** on the current offchain vote because this will help bring more liquidity into Arbitrum. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/bruce/32/10600_2.png) [@Bruce](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Bruce)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 1:37pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/62 "2025-03-25T13:37:58Z")
**Voting FOR!** Spark Liquidity Layer and Spark Savings Service are critical infrastructure for the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. The prerequisite for enabling their functionalities is to ensure users can seamlessly bridge USDS and sUSDS. This proposal carries low technical risk, incurs zero cost, and merits strong community support. ---
**Author:** ![Curia](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/curia/32/7751_2.png) [@Curia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Curia)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 6:41pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/63 "2025-03-25T18:41:58Z")
We’re voting **FOR** this proposal. Even though USDS will likely be supported by many bridges, adding the Sky Custom Gateway makes the user experience smoother by allowing official bridging through the Arbitrum UI. The contracts have been properly audited and verified, so we’re comfortable with the security. Overall, it’s a simple, low-risk step that brings Maker and Sky closer to the Arbitrum ecosystem. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617.md?page=4)