Thank you to the Arbitrum Foundation for initiating this important discussion and for presenting the issue with clarity and transparency.
We agree vote buying presents a threat to the integrity of informed decision-making within DAOs. The purpose of a decentralized governance system is to enable engaged, informed delegates to steer the protocol toward long-term success. Mechanisms that commoditize voting rights can undermine this foundational principle, particularly when votes are acquired without any alignment to governance values or context.
That said, based on our current assessment, and in alignment with the Governance Attack Report published by the ARDC, we do not believe vote buying currently represents an existential or systemic threat to Arbitrum governance. The ability for such behavior to materially alter outcomes is limited by the broader level of community engagement. In particular, higher participation rates among long-term aligned stakeholders significantly dilute the potential influence of purchased votes, as seen in the OpCo elections.
To that end, we view initiatives like Governance Staking by Tally as an important step forward. By activating previously idle voting power and encouraging more consistent participation from aligned token holders, we can raise the bar for influence and make governance more robust overall.
Rather than calling for an outright ban or punitive action against vote buying, we suggest implementing governance adjustments that incentivise balanced voting like @WinVerse 's caps on election support from single entities, which limits the impact of a concentrated set of votes for sale.
In our view, this is a moment for thoughtful refinement, not panic. We encourage further community discussion around exploring practical mechanisms that balance permissionless voting with high quality decision-making.