This proposal addresses an operational requirement that ideally should be permissionless and not necessitate direct DAO approval. Registering $BORING poses minimal risk or potential harm to the DAO’s interests, as it simply enables the token’s bridging capability essential for Superboring’s growth on Arbitrum, benefiting the ecosystem. However, it’s clear from this process that the DAO should work towards streamlining and automating such procedures in the future, minimizing governance overhead and allowing smoother onboarding of similar tokens.
We support this proposal as it enables $BORING to be bridged to Arbitrum, supporting Superboring’s expansion and incentivized adoption on the network. Since the token is non-upgradable and requires DAO intervention to register with the custom gateway, this is a simple, low-cost action that enhances ecosystem composability without introducing risk.
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.
We appreciate the solid effort Didi from Super Boring’s participation into Arbitrum ecosystem. Great discussion surrounding the adoption of custom gateways across chains. We agree with sentiment @vijaym1 there’s significant traction built and given the development is headed by the team for Superfluid this integration could be fruitful for Arbitrum’s ecosystem. As this will require no negligible cost and enhances protocol development within the chain, we are in support of this proposal.
I’m voting yes because allowing $BORING to work on Arbitrum will help more people use the Superboring app and bring more activity to the chain. It’s a small change but useful, and it doesn’t cost the DAO anything. Seem like a good move.
I agree with everyone else, this doesn’t really seem to be a DAO item. I understand that due to lack of other options, this is the most efficient way to get it done, so voting For as not to hinder progress of the Arb ecosystem.
Look, I’m not a technical user so if there is an overarching issue that I’m not understanding so be it… but there has to be abetter way to do this. either decentralized Or atleast without a DAO vote. I can’t imagine there isn’t a better way to handle this that doesn’t rely on the DAO process, as it has to be off putting to projects to have to delay there launches due to admistrative burden.
Edit: Editing to save forum space, my opinion has not changed since my snapshot vote and I am voting for on Tally as well
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.
As mentioned in our earlier feedback, we see this as a routine technical update to allow $BORING to bridge properly to Arbitrum, rather than as an endorsement of the token itself.
While we fully support Superboring’s expansion and recognize the value of Super Tokens for on-chain payments, the need for a full DAO vote on these custom token registrations adds unnecessary overhead and slows down onboarding for growing projects. We align with others who’ve said that technical review and audits should become the main requirements, with only exceptional cases going to governance. We urge the DAO to streamline such processes for the future, and we support this request as a positive, low-risk step for Arbitrum.
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.
We recently also voted in favor of the proposal to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the router, and we are also supportive of registering $BORING, similar to how we had also done for $RARI. As we noted in the proposal for Sky, though, we need to figure out a frictionless way to handle these registrations and to avoid having a fully-fledged vote for each of them.
I already did this in private channels, but to keep things official will also post here. As this vote passed the temperature check on Snapshot and the DAO almost unanimously showed support for it, I’d like to request support from @Arbitrum Foundation with followup steps - esp with due dilligence and preparing payload for the onchain transaction. As this is an onchain change with consequences to the ecosystem, we feel that it should not be a responsibility of a single delegate and it needs to be validated by the Arbitrum Foundation anyway. Once the payload is prepare and greenlighted by the Foundation we’ll be happy to help with putting the vote onchain.
I would also like to mention that we have proposed forming a working group to discuss how to handle such changes in the future so they are less troublesome and take less than a few months to complete.
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 Tally voting.
We see this vote as a straightforward step to let $BORING integrate with Arbitrum using the generic-custom gateway. This helps Superboring grow and lets users confidently interact with the correct token, reducing confusion or risk of imitations. From a technical perspective, this is simply aligning two contracts for safe bridging, without introducing any new risk to existing systems or the DAO treasury.
As we’ve said before, requiring a formal DAO vote for each technical mapping like this is not the most efficient use of community effort. Projects like Superboring want to ship real adoption and volume; waiting for a governance cycle makes the experience harder for builders and does not make the network safer. We agree with other delegates that technical reviews and audits, not repeated DAO-wide votes, should set the bar for routine gateway actions.
We also appreciate recent steps to address this, like the launch of the Maintenance Upgrades Working Group led by @krst. We hope this initiative results in a smoother and more predictable path for operational upgrades or routine actions like token registration, so that governance is focused on the highest value issues while technical experts keep our infrastructure safe.
This update is positive for the Arbitrum ecosystem, poses low risk, and supports a well-established project.
This is a technically simple proposal, but one that could cause friction for other projects to do the same. L2beat has brought up discussions about ways to improve this process without the need for a Constitutional Proposal—and we support this type of initiative.
FOR — Today a constitutional AIP needs 10 % of total ARB to reach quorum; recent votes have scraped by with 6–7 %. Dropping the quorum to 5 % keeps a meaningful safety-barrier while ending the grid-lock risk that makes treasuries nervous about parking votes here. The change doesn’t weaken the ⅔-super-majority rule, so hostile take-overs remain impossible, but it does let genuine upgrades clear when delegate turnout is 40-50 %. A leaner quorum means smoother governance and a more attractive home for large, long-horizon delegators—exactly the stability I want to signal.
Thank you for the proposal. I always write this, and I always mean it.
This proposal follows in line with previous similar decisions made by the DAO and contributes to expanding the operational capabilities of the DAO as a whole. These are two key reasons why I view this proposal positively.
I also believe that collaborating with a reliable and trustworthy additional organization/protocol/entity strengthens the broader team, which helps attract more attention, and with that, increases the potential for revenue generation. As I’ve mentioned multiple times, for me, revenue growth is one of the most important — if not the most important — factors for the DAO’s long-term success.
Lastly, the insightful comment by vijaym1 served as the cherry on top to vote FOR.