2 Polls Closing July 31, 2025
[Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support closing the USDT bridge to Arbitrum One now that most volume has migrated to the USDT0 bridge.
Recommendation: Vote For. This is largely an irrelevant vote, as USDT bridging has now been ceded entirely to 3rd-party bridges (Notably USDT0 and LayerZero). There is almost no USDT still in the canonical USDT bridge whose shutdown is being voted upon, so there is little impact on users and few integrations relay upon it. Users that bridge USDT from mainnet today receive USDT0 on Arbitrum already.
Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance
Summary: This poll asks ARB holders if they support sweeping idle USDC from two expired and one ongoing budget into the ATMC program, which aims to generate yield off of DAO-owned assets until they are needed to finance governance activities.
Recommendation: Vote For. With the update that this does not revoke the authorized Events Budget, merely shifting where the funding sits, we are in favor.
1 Poll Closing August 7, 2025
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.