Tim Chang’s reelection for 2026 (1 of 5 seats)
Of all the other candidates, he’s the most experienced, with a ton of time in gaming as a VC.
The only thing that’s concerning is that he doesn’t participate in the general vote, like the other candidates. It feels like there’s a risk he won’t make it into the top 5, or why was this decision made? I don’t think this should be done in the future - it’s a violation of competition.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
This John Kennedy is also quite a good specialist; he worked on game development and network gaming infrastructure at Amazon AWS GameTech.
There’s a similar complaint about him not participating in the general voting process, like other candidates. It feels like there’s a risk he won’t make it into the top 5, or why was this decision made? I don’t think this should be done in the future - it’s a violation of competition.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
It’s quite a difficult choice, given that it’s quite difficult to assess the quality of work of each member who has participated for the past 1.5 years.
Greg Canessa is a clear contender for the win - one of the most experienced specialists.
David Bolger - I chose him because he’s on the Arbitrum team and can facilitate interactions.
I chose Tekrox.eth because of his active participation on the forum - we talked about the game’s presentation, and his optimism for this area of Arbitrum’s development is evident.
Vote: Greg Canessa, David Bolger, Tekrox.eth (equal shares)
Platform: Snapshot
Importantly,
The cost will increase slightly. The main increase in gas was due to the cost of blobs, and this may change attitudes toward L2, but it’s unlikely to be significant. I conducted an analysis and found that while the cost of blobs has increased significantly, the difference from the mainnet has remained virtually unchanged for the end user.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Tally
This vote can be broken down into two different components:
Quorum – I’ve already stated this many times.
[Constitutional] DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters - #35 by cp0x
Proposal Cancellation
I support this part; it’s been discussed many times; this decision can finally be implemented.
However, when one of the proposed decisions is unsatisfactory, one has to vote against the others – this combination of votes is a bad example of manipulation.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Tally
It is proposed to return program surpluses not to the Treasury, but directly to the ATMC (except for ARB).
Instead of direct voting, we are creating committees that monitor ATMC activities (DAO funds are spent, without direct control by the DAO itself).
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
Due to the low Vout Power, I felt it necessary to support only one candidate.
Michael Lewellen has the maximum knowledge and expertise for this job. He was also recommended by other past participants who are not currently participating in this election.
Vote: Michael Lewellen
Finally, they’re making the document indefinitely valid (this was my proposal, at least the last time, but such proposals were reasonable before).
There are no significant changes. Voting is still required for the benefit of Arbitrum, but what constitutes benefit is up to each individual, and it’s rather vague.
You can vote however you like regarding a conflict of interest, but you must disclose it before voting.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
Main Changes
While I’m not happy with point 2 (it’s unclear why they should have such rights for 2 years), it could theoretically always be overturned with a new vote, and the fork isn’t so large as to significantly disrupt anything.
Vote: FOR
Platform: Snapshot
It’s proposed to transfer the entire remaining treasury—6,000 ETH and $150,000 (previously, six months ago, they transferred 8,500 ETH there).
The idea itself is good, the money should be used, but I don’t like that the Entropy team, which was recently founded, is handling the strategies. I completely fail to understand why they’re performing this function when there are plenty of professionals in the market who could do it much cheaper and better.
DAO has been removed from the strategies (and I would understand this if professionals were handling them). It only votes on the transfer of funds, but has no influence on how they’re managed.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
They’re proposing to remove exclusivity for Arbitrum and add an AI security scan as a supplement to the audit.
I would have voted FOR, and I originally planned to do so, but after promptly leaving my feedback and questions for the authors, I was late, and I haven’t received any response or answers in 11 days. I don’t like this approach to delegates, as if they’re simply obligated to click without thinking or interfering.
Important unanswered questions:
• What benefit does spending $10 million a year on an audit bring?
• What are the overall goals of this program, and how will we know we’ve achieved success?
• Are there any conclusions to be drawn over time, what have we achieved, and what are the benefits for Arbitrum?
Arbitrum’s assets need to be valued, not profited from a treasury that’s no longer as large.
Vote: AGAINST
Platform: Snapshot
