There have been discussions and more recently a proposal that highlighted the need to address insufficient ARB holdings covering agreed-upon rates. To mitigate these sorts of issues in the future, treasury management would come in handy. Hence, we supported this.
A process to sustain ongoing hackathon projects is good so we were in favor of this proposal. We also voted for no onchain mechanism to reduce administrative overhead
We are really pleased with the D.A.O. initiative and all the work that has been done. We are also excited to see a fifth domain added so we voted in favor during the temp check.
We agree some parts of the proposal still need to be fleshed out but we are supportive of the initiative and decided to signal early support by voting in favor.
Voted Communications Role
We split our vote evenly between @Frisson@pedrob@jameskbh. Very present individuals who have demonstrated they are capable of fulfilling the obligations of this role.
Research
Here, we voted for Blockwork Advisory. They have been strong supporters of the Arbitrum community doing valuable work, most recently, their Timeboost analysis.
Risk
For risk, we voted for @VendingMachine. Very committed team, and with the work they put into the staking WG, we are pretty confident they would deliver well here too.
Security
Voted for @openzeppelin in this category. Solid work background within Arbitrum DAO generally but most especially along the ARDC lines. Also, good action items for V2.
We have a structure and plan for events in 2025 and would prefer the DAO to stick to that rather than spend separately on this. For this reason, we voted against during the temp check.
Saurabh extensive experience from participation in Questbook’s DDA program as a grants manager would play a major part in this role among other things. We also voted for Gabriel as we are supportive of how they envision supporting DeFi projects.
SEED has shown much more alignment than any other group in this category, and with a strong plan on how they are looking to go about this role, we are in favor.
This was another easy one. We believe Juandi has handled this role well in DDA’s past iterations and has strong expertise so we are happy to support him once again.
Gaming is somewhat a slippery slope considering we already have a body dedicated to leading this. However, we are confident Flook would still bring value here as they have deep experience and alignment within the community hence our support.
We were supportive of this proposal. A well-defined structure like this would help optimize capital deployment to projects while curbing grant misuse at the same time.
Having an audit program run by AF and OCL is good. We would love to see this come back to the DAO at some point in the future but we were happy to support the community taking this shape right now.
The proposal to register the Sky custom gateway is clear-cut, and importantly, the DAO retains control to modify the gateway if needed. The fact that trusted auditors have reviewed the code adds credibility, too.
We maintained our support for both from their respective temp checks, and were in favor of meshing them into one Tally proposal to reduce the overhead of seeing them go through as they are constitutional proposals.
We supported the proposal during the temperature check but abstained from the onchain vote. While budget concerns remain, our main issue is with the program’s structure.
We believe onboarding should be research-driven—encouraging participants to engage with the community, identify challenges, and propose solutions—rather than matching them directly to protocols.
We supported this proposal during the temp check and maintained support during onchain vote, confident in the technical capabilities of both the Foundation and OCL. The involvement of an OpCo team member is also a positive.
That said, with a Foundation member running in the current election, we believe appointing an alternate to the committee—if they’re elected—would help preserve balance.
We also value the inclusion of payment conditions and a clear quarterly reporting structure, which strengthens transparency and accountability.
We supported both the hackathon top-up and the transfer of remaining funds to the TMC. Redirecting unused Season 1 funds to the hackathon was the most efficient use, and Jojo’s recommendation to allocate the surplus to the TMC was a strong call.
DRIP is a well-structured step toward sustainable incentives. Our initial concerns on season overlap and program scope were addressed.
We still urge careful monitoring of power concentration and long-term impact, but overall, we view this as a strong strategic advancement for the community.
We supported it during the temp check and maintained that stance onchain. While some changes were made ahead of the vote, we’re comfortable with the final version.
While we initially suggested a more phased reduction, the clarification that 4.5% will effectively mirror current quorum levels by July addresses our concern. As a temporary fix to unblock constitutional governance, this is a pragmatic step while longer-term participation and quorum reforms are explored.
With Event Horizon’s transition to agentic governance, the current 7M delegation gives the Community Pool outsized voting power without clear accountability. Reducing it to 100K strikes a better balance — the pool remains active but no longer dominates votes.
This aligns with EH broader move toward agentic governance and ensures more distributed, representative outcomes across the DAO.
With the MSS’s responsibilities largely complete and operational redundancy growing, transitioning payment duties to the Arbitrum Foundation is a practical next step, at least until OpCo is ready.
This shift improves efficiency, reduces unnecessary complexity, and aligns with how other DAO functions are evolving. We support this as a clean and timely wind-down.
With better understanding as to how the community is evolving, it only made sense to support this update to the initial proposed mandate. The proposal ensures the team can operate effectively by aligning its legal and operational structure with its current activities.
This update reduces administrative risk, improves clarity around roles and responsibilities, and supports smoother execution of DAO-approved initiatives.
While the intention to enhance forum functionality is appreciated, it leans towards more of a nice to have than a must have.
We were not in favor of this proposal mostly because of where we are as a DAO at the moment. We do not consider this a priority at this time. Also, the proposal overreaches by bundling multiple features without clear community demand.
We support consolidating treasury oversight into a single, more accountable Treasury Management Council. This streamlines decision-making, reduces redundancy, and brings clarity to how DAO funds are managed.
By merging efforts under one coordinated structure, we can better ensure risk-managed, transparent, and effective capital deployment while still maintaining community oversight through clearly defined guardrails.
Since the introduction of blobs, it had made sense to remove the cost cap on Nova. We believe Nova has definitely served its purpose, paving the way for Orbit.
Removing the cost cap enables more responsive funding to meet its current operational and growth needs. This change reflects Nova’s evolution since launch and aligns spending flexibility with strategic priorities.
Both candidates have very solid resumes and are clearly fit for the role.
However, after listening in to both candidates speak during the candidates intro call, we decided to go with Andrei as we believe his broader activity in auditing makes him better positioned and will help better serve external auditors.
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal majorly because of the updated way of evaluating delegates feedback. We believe the objective approach will work better than how it has been done in the past. We were also in favor of excluding vote-buying platforms.
We were generally in support of this change during the discussion phase but after voting in favor of the v1.7 just a few weeks ago, we were on the fence.
However, although we wanted to abstain during the temp check, we decided to vote to revert just to give the team behind DIP some food for thought on incentives alignment for delegates and/or contributors.
We supported this proposal during the onchain vote as it was a consolidation of three constitutional proposals we already showed support of during the temp check.
**Voted: FOR
**
We will always be supportive of treasury efforts that put idle assets to work, so we supported activating the 8500 ETH in idle funds accrued from Sequencer and Timeboost Revenue.
As the proposal states, quorum is currently computed based on the full voteable supply whereas the amount of delegated voting power (DVP) has remained relatively flat. Thus, addressing the growing gap between circulating tokens and actively delegated ones is crucial.
This DVP-based quorum aligns decision-making thresholds with real voter participation, ensuring ArbitrumDAO remains functional and representative.
We voted in favor because the proposal is a proactive measure. It introduces the model now while allowing parameters to be fine-tuned later, offering flexibility and time for further community input, technical review, and sustained efforts to increase delegation and engagement.
Paulo stated clearly that this is a temperature check, so we were confident in supporting the proposal on Snapshot. Asides that, we were still in favor because of his approach towards delegates’ incentives and his intentions behind it.
Making delegate incentives predictable, objective, and transparent is a good narrative and one we would back. However, having no primary governing body introduces some friction that delegates rightly pointed out. This particular aspect is tackled with DIP 2.0.
In essence, while we support some aspects of this proposal, we strongly align with L2BEAT comment on fostering collaboration, as we believe incentives would be best addressed when the DIP 2.0 team works together with Paulo to bring up something rather than putting separate proposals forward.
We are supportive of some aspects of this proposal, especially the introduction of a manager for general administration/oversight and the proposal’s cost effectiveness.
However, same with the Triple Dip, we believe there is more value in working with Paulo to produce a more collaborative proposal than pushing separate processes on similar initiatives.