3 Polls Closing July 17, 2025
[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders to support BORING through a permissioned registration on the gateway router.
Recommendation: Vote For. As we stated when approving something similar for RARI, this process probably could be streamlined to avoid needing a constitutional vote, since this presents little risk and there may be demand from other token issuers in the future.
[[Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors
](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc08147e229fa642ee7da2e5180f225122b8c517024902f21cdcd02b376179b8d)Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support replacing the Upgrade Executor contracts on Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, and Ethereum mainnet with upgraded versions. The modernized version introduces an additional function that enables the Upgrade Executor to execute an upgrade by directly calling the target contract, rather than indirectly delegate calling an upgrade contract. Future governance actions can be executed more simply and with fewer contract deployments.
Recommendation: Vote For. This will reduce technical complexity. This upgrade has been audited by Trail of Bits.
Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Year 2 and Year 3
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support renewing Entropy’s exclusivity and service provider agreement for another 24 months. Maximum possible compensation is 15,000,000 ARB, with 5,000,000 ARB base pay and up to 10,000,000 ARB for meeting KPIs. Voters are strongly encouraged to view the full proposal details here.
Recommendation: Vote For. Maximum spend is $6m in today’s market prices. However, the ARB token has, unfortunately, been down-only most of its lifetime, and Entropy’s base pay has a 3-year vesting period (1-year cliff).
In the wake of recent organizational changes, Entropy was the last entity solely responsible to governance. While it nominally remains so, we want to voice our discomfort with the OpCo being Entropy’s counterparty. The OpCo’s oversight committee includes members of OCL and Arbitrum Foundation, which in our view threatens its independence from those entities and generally defeats the purpose of having OpCo in the first place. Other standing entities, like the gaming venture fund, are similarly entwined with one or more of OCL and AF, have no need of ongoing funding, or both.
This left Entropy as the only permanent body or entity that was reliant upon DAO governance and insulated from influence by OCL and AF. Putting Entropy under OpCo’s supervision (to meet its KPIs for 10m ARB compensation) curtails that independence, and leaves governance with few agents to rely upon and few ways to act if its interests diverge from AF and/or OCL.
However, we think Entropy has done quality work, and will not object to a renewed service agreement, regardless of the poor governance situation Arbitrum currently finds itself in.