Ignas Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
1

1. Basic Info

  • Name: Ignas
  • Delegate Address: ignasdefi.eth | 0x3DDC7d25c7a1dc381443e491Bbf1Caa8928A05B0
  • X (Twitter): x.com
  • Telegram: @ignasdefi
  • Website: https://pinkbrains.io/

2. Intro

I’m Ignas, a solo researcher with the main focus on DeFi. My mission is to provide clear, in-depth insights helping my audiences stay up-to-date with the latest trends while actively supporting DAO development.

I believe in the decentralized future and it means actively participating in Arbitrum DAO in every way I can—whether it’s by serving as a delegate, joining working groups, discussing any proposals or seizing new opportunities that come up. I’ll also be sharing key DAO decisions on X and my blog.

3. Delegate Communication Intent

I’m committed to keeping the Arbitrum community informed with regular, transparent updates. I’ll provide clear insights into my voting choices and reasoning to ensure everyone understands the direction we’re headed and why.

4. Why I Want to be a Delegate
Currently, DeFi DAOs face several internal issues, such as voter apathy leading to governance attacks, insider voting, and voting concentration among a few active voting addresses. Additionally, they face external challenges like regulatory uncertainty.

I believe in a decentralized future, even if it seems naive. However, the current state of crypto is plagued by misaligned incentives that prioritize short-term speculative gains over the core DeFi values of self-sovereignty and custody.

Equally concerning is the trend of McKinsification in DAOs, where decisions are increasingly made by one or two professional consultant delegates. This discourages individual participation, as their opinions and votes have less impact.

To make DeFi DAOs viable, we must align incentives to encourage active participation in governance from the broader crypto community. I believe that community must be at the core of every DAO. Without giving the community a say in protocol governance, we’re no better than the Web2 companies we aim to replace—companies that view their “community” merely as users to extract value from.

I will support initiatives that align token holders with the protocol, such as revenue sharing or other methods to bring value to the token. Token holders are frustrated with exploitative tokenomics that only benefit early insiders who acquired tokens at much lower prices, leaving no upside for new investors. Without incentives to buy and hold tokens, the attractiveness and health of DAOs decline.
As mentioned, I will highlight key votes and decisions of the DAO on X and my blog, as I believe the general public is often unaware of important actions being taken.

5. Disclosure

I am the co-founder of Pink Brains, an organization dedicated to promoting various crypto projects through educational content. You can find more info about us here: pinkbrains | Twitter | Linktree.

I’m a delegate for Lido and Instadapp and will be soon a delegate in here - Arbitrum. Moreover, I’m actively involved in Uniswap, Optimism, Aave,…I plan to apply as a delegate to other DAOs soon, with the same mission of strengthening them and aligning token holders with the protocol.

I always make appropriate disclosures and recuse myself from voting when necessary.

6. Delegation

If anyone would like to delegate to me, please use the following address: 0x3DDC7d25c7a1dc381443e491Bbf1Caa8928A05B0

2

`1. Proposal: Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon (Tally)
- Date Voted: September 11, 2024
- Vote: For

3

Date Voted: September 19, 2024

2. Proposal: [Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request (Snapshot)
- Vote: For
- Rationale: I support this proposal as it involves no additional cost and simply extends the timeline to complete the distribution of ARB as originally planned. It ensures the grant is fully utilized without any extra expense.

3. Proposal: Constitutional AIP: Proposal to adopt Timeboost, a new transaction ordering policy (Snapshot)
- Vote: Collect bids in ARB and burn
- Rationale: I vote in favor of implementing Timeboost to enhance DAO revenue because I believe that every user would appreciate having an express lane for their transactions. Specifically, I support the option to collect bids in ARB and burn the proceeds. Burning ARB reduces its supply, which could raise the value of the remaining tokens

4. Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Off-site (Snapshot)
- Vote: Online
- Rationale:
Excited to learn about the directions of our DAO and engaging with delegates and top projects. As a newcomer to Arbitrum’s DAO, I am curious in learning from these discussions and learning more about our collective development potential.

However, I would like to suggest considering an online format for the event rather than hosting it alongside Devcon Thailand or as private event. Given that Devcon-related side events might overlap with ours, an online event could offer greater flexibility and accessibility. Moreover, hosting the event online would significantly reduce costs and enable participation from a global audience, allow more members to engage.

I have a question regarding participation criteria. For newcomers like myself, the current requirements at least 20M ARB from endorsements or to be among the top 100 ARB holders may be challenging and time-consuming. Is there a possibility to lower these criteria or provide alternative pathways for participation? I believe that by making the event more inclusive, we can foster a broader range of contributions and perspectives, which would be valuable for our discussions and overall Arbitrum development.

Thank you for considering my suggestions, and I look forward to the opportunity to contribute and learn from the event.

4

Date Voted: September 20, 2024

5. Proposal: Terms of Tenure for STEP program manager (Snapshot)
- Vote: Additional funds for one year
- Rationale:
I vote for “Additional funds for one year” because I believe the DAO should cover this cost. The proposer didn’t account for the ARB price changes, especially when paying Steakhouse, who quoted in stablecoin and the DAO accepted.

While it’s unfortunate that the ARB price dropped, it’s not Steakhouse’s fault, and they shouldn’t have to absorb this loss. I also agree with @duokongcrypto that using ARB instead of stablecoin might help avoid such issues in the future, as long as we handle price changes carefully.

Btw, I’m so interested in discussing how we manage these kinds of issues as the DAO grows. Balancing our budget and dealing with external services effectively will be important as we move forward :slight_smile:

6. Proposal: GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity (Snapshot)
- Vote: 1.5

1 Like
5

7. Proposal: UPDATED - Ethereum Protocol Attackathon Sponsorship (Tally)
8. Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal (Tally)
9. Proposal: Constitutional AIP - Extend Delay on L2Time LockVote onchain (Tally)

Date Voted: September 30, 2024
Vote: For

6

Date Voted: October 1, 2024

10. Proposal: Research on context and retention (Snapshot)
- Vote: For
- Rationale: I have no issues with this proposal, and it should move forward. No budget is required, and there’s no security risk since it uses an open-source API. Importantly, if approved, this proposal will help identify potential members of the community.

11. Proposal: An EIP-4824 powered daoURI for Arbitrum DAO (Snapshot)
- Vote: For – Use ENS txt records

7

Date Voted: October 7, 2024

12. Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funds to Bolster Foundation’s Strategic Partnerships Budget (Tally)
- Vote: For
- Rationale: I already discussed about this proposal in the forum but want to emphasize again, this is an interesting proposal, and it’s good to expand Arbitrum’s collaboration with other projects. It’s especially important to focus on RWAs, which have become quite significant lately.
I’m not sure how much budget should be added, but I would like to know more about your plans for expenditure, expected results, and the budget for each project. Maybe a bit off topic but maybe can consider partnerships with DeFi creators to strengthen the DAO’s mindshare.

13. Proposal: ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal (Tally)
- Vote: For
- Rationale: I shared my thoughts in the Snapshot vote and I’m glad the online format was approved. I think hosting the event in October makes more sense than in November or December, as it gives the DAO more time to identify key directions for development. I also like the idea of following up after the event to make sure everything moves forward smoothly.

14. Proposal: Enhancing Multichain Governance: Upgrading RARI Governance Token on Arbitrum (Tally)
- Vote: Abstain

8

Date Voted: October 11, 2024

15. Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum DAO Delegate Incentive Program (Tally)
- Vote: Yes
- Rationale:
I’m all for these changes:

  • Raising the threshold to 75%: I have no idea to raising the threshold to 75% over the last 90 days cause I will follow what helps the DAO develop. This change will increase delegate participation and is not too hard to achieve.

  • Increasing Delegates’ Feedback (DF) to 30%: I think It will hold delegates responsible for their participation :), pushing them to check the forum regularly to give qualitative feedback on time. If they don’t, they’ll miss out on important discussions.

  • Total Participation (TP) to 65%: Agree that many delegates can easily hit the 60% mark with their tally voting, so this is a reasonable step.

16. Proposal: Fund the Stylus Sprint (Tally)
- Vote: Yes

17. Proposal: LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections (Snapshot)
- Vote: Abstain

18. Proposal: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 (Snapshot)
- Vote: Yes

9

Date Voted: October 22, 2024

19. Proposal: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective (Snapshot)
- Vote: Funded with 2.09M USDC + Council
- Rationale: I voted for the middle option, 2.09M USDC. I believe we need ongoing these ARDC programs to keep governance, security, and research stronger. I think this option will give us enough resources to make good progress without too overspending. Btw, I understand the basic differences between the three options, but if the author could share more details about each initiative and what results we can expect from them, it will easier to evaluate.

20. Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Arbitrum Token Swap Pilot Program (Snapshot)
- Vote: Abstain
- Rationale: I understand that it’s important to keep good relationships with key projects in the ecosystem, but I’m not sure this is the right move. I think we should consider the risk of price volatility, as it could negatively impact both the project and Arbitrum’s reputation. So I choose to abstain :slightly_smiling_face:

21. Proposal: GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for Tim Chang (Snapshot)
- Vote: Please vote “ Reconfirm Tim Chang to GCPC
22. Proposal: GCP Council Re-Confirmation Vote for John Kennedy (Snapshot)
- Vote: Reconfirm John Kennedy to GCPC

Rationale: Thanks for highlighting Tim and John expertise and experiences, I have no problem with them staying in this role. Voted for Reconfirm Tim Chang and John Kennedy to GCPC.

10

Date Voted: November 1, 2024

23. Proposal: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective (Tally)

- Vote: For
- Rationale: Glad to see this proposal on on-chain vote! I shared my thoughts in the snapshot because I really believe ongoing ARDC programs are crucial for strengthening our governance, security, and research. I also believe this will help Arbitrum have a professional financial management system.

23. Proposal: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 (Tally)

  • Vote: For
    - Rationale: I voted for this proposal. The budget is reasonable since it has mostly support on the Snapshot vote. With a clear view of the event budget for 2025, it will help the DAO organize events more effectively and respond quickly to new opportunities, attracting more participants :slightly_smiling_face:

25. Proposal: Adopt a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalize Operations (Snapshot)

- Vote: For
- Rationale: This seems like a smart move, especially with the Arbitrum DAO growing to over 800 delegates (data from Kamar). I know it’s tough for the mod to keep track of everyone’s actions and make sure they meet the standards for professionalism, transparency ,… So having a clear set of values and behaviors will help hold each delegate responsible for what they do.

I have a question, though. Will there be a clear penalty for delegates who break the Code of Conduct in the Delegate Incentive Program? For example, will a delegate be removed right away for any mistake, or will it depend on how serious it is? I’m asking because I plan to run in December :slight_smile:

By the way, really happy to see this proposal moving forward!

11
  1. Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2 (Snapshot)
  • Date Voted: November 15, 2024
  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: I voted “For” on Snapshot because I believe Treasury and Grow management tracks will help Arbitrum build a stronger financial system with flexible investment options - make sure for long-term development and stability.
12

27. Proposal: Restitution For Extensively Delayed ArbitrumDAO Minigrant Winners (Snapshot)

  • Date Voted: November 22, 2024
  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: I voted “For” this proposal. I believe we should prioritize the community. The amount requested isn’t much, and the DAO can afford it. In crypto, waiting months for grants can be risky because market fluctuations can seriously affect projects. By the way, DAO should learn from this to move fast as well as prioritize the community initiatives.
13

28. Proposal: Hackathon Continuation Program (Snapshot)

  • Date Voted: November 25, 2024
  • Vote: In favour, yes onchain mechanism
  • Rationale: I think this proposal is a great way to follow up projects from the hackathon and bring more value to Arbitrum. So voted In favour, but would like to share 2 concerns:
  1. What’s the plan to make sure these projects keep growing after the program ends, and don’t just rely on short-term support from Arbitrum and RnDAO?
  2. If a project doesn’t meet its goals or doesn’t deliver as expected, how will the DAO protect the funds given to them?
14

Date Voted: December 2, 2024

  1. Proposal: [Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum? (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)

  • Rationale: Thanks for the proposal! I think this is definitely an important topic to discuss to enhance Arbitrum. Well, a lot of developers choose blockchains based on grants rather than the potential of the ecosystem. Once they get the grant, they move on to other blockchains :). So I think this proposal is a good move to find projects that truly want to build on Arbitrum, not just developers looking for a quick fix.

    I voted for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) because when comparing with Solana and Optimism will help us understand the differences in user needs, habits, and behaviors between L1 and L2 ecosystems. Arbitrum can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of them stay competitive.

    However, I feel the plan could be a bit more detailed. How will methods like personas and job-to-be-done ensure that the research findings will be actually applied to improve features and support for the Arbitrum ecosystem?

30. Proposal: Designing and operating the reporting and information function (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Against

  • Rationale: I believe while improving reporting and oversight is important, DAO should carefully consider whether this $263,260 investment will truly bring long-term value to Arbitrum.

    With over half of it going towards operational costs, such as FTEs or reporting-related activities, it’s a significant amount for these activities :). Moreover, the buffer $23,932 might not be enough to cover unexpected costs, and we could end up needing more funds.

    Plus, it creates just more bureaucracy than before.

    So I decided to vote “Against” on Snapshot.

15

Date Voted: December 6, 2024

31. Proposal: Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program (Tally)

  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: I already voted yes on Snapshot. Danielo addressed my two concerns about the future plan and safeguards for DAO funds if projects don’t deliver as expected. Excited to see it executed!

32. Proposal: Treasury Management V1.2 (Tally)

  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: Same reason with Snapshot vote. I believe Treasury and Grow management tracks will help Arbitrum build a stronger financial system with flexible investment options - make sure for long-term development and stability.

33. Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Renew with 5 domains (adding Orb)
  • Rationale: I voted to renew the program with $7,477,800 and 5 domains. With Orbit Chains, Arbitrum will be able to directly compete with other blockchains focusing on sidechains and layer 2 solutions :slightly_smiling_face:

34. Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I think this proposal has the potential to boost both the quality and quantity of participants in DAO, which will make it more sustainable in the long run. Specifically, with a professional leadership team, important decisions can be made more accurately.

    As many delegates have mentioned regarding the program’s budget, I’m fully convinced that DAO will make the best adjustments to protect funds long-term. So it’s worth giving it a shot, and I voted yes on Snapshot!

35. Proposal: ARDC (V2) Supervisory Council Election (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Abstain
  • Rationale: I voted abstain and believe in other delegate decisions.

36. Proposal: ARDC (V2) Research Election (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Messari (50%), Blockworks (50%)
  • Rationale: I believe Messari and Blockworks have the most experience in DAOs, but voted for all equally as I want to see more newer faces in the DAO.

37. Proposal: ARDC (V2) Risk Election (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Nethermind (50%), DeFiSafety (50%)
  • Rationale: I like both Nethermind and DeFiSafety above else. Their rates are not cheap but reasonable, and they have a lot of experience in assessing risks and improving security for DeFi protocols.

38. Proposal: ARDC (V2) Security Election (Snapshot)

  • Vote: OpenZeppelin (50%), Trail of Bits (50%)

  • Rationale: I like both options. Glad they are onboard for Arbitrum DAO!

    OpenZeppelin added so much value to the space with repositories and Trail of Bits has become the top auditor too.

16

Date Voted: December 13, 2024

39. Proposal: Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP) (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: The MVP should be shared widely to raise awareness among all delegates, participants, and the Arbitrum community. Once the off-chain and on-chain votes are done and the proposal is executed, I think the DAO should post updates so everyone in the Arbitrum community can follow and support long-term growth.

    As always, I believe in a decentralized future, which is a key part of the proposal’s mission. To achieve this, we need to avoid the trend of decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants. This discourages individual participation, as their opinions and votes have less impact. We must align incentives to encourage active participation in governance from the broader crypto community. And, I believe that community must be at the core of every DAO. Without giving the community a say in protocol governance, we’re no better than the Web2 companies we aim to replace—companies that view their “community” merely as users to extract value from.

    I also want to see the initiatives that align token holders with the protocol, such as revenue sharing or other methods to bring value to the token. Token holders are frustrated with exploitative tokenomics that only benefit early insiders who acquired tokens at much lower prices, leaving no upside for new investors. Without incentives to buy and hold tokens, the attractiveness and health of DAOs decline.

    I voted yes on snapshot, and I hope my thoughts add value to the DAO :slight_smile:

40. Proposal: Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: This event will definitely be a great opportunity for Arbitrum to boost brand recognition and presence in the Ethereum community, especially in Eastern Europe.

    I was torn between the two options, with POAP and without POAP. But after thinking it over, I believe the POAP will help increase community engagement and connections with Arbitrum, and the budget difference isn’t that significant. So, I voted FOR, with POAP - $69,300.

41. Proposal: OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: I definitely see the value in OpCo for Arbitrum – it will really help optimize management, finances, and strategy while bringing more professionalism and transparency to the DAO.

    That being said, the 30-month timeline feels long for such a proposal, especially with a budget of 22M ARB (even after it was reduced from 35M ARB). That’s a big sum, and if it’s not managed properly, we could see financial inflation :slightly_smiling_face:

    I’ve voted yes on Snapshot, but I’d love to know how we ensure the 22M ARB is spent effectively and doesn’t have unnecessary costs? Also, what’s the plan to protect the DAO if OpCo doesn’t meet their goals or fails to deliver on commitments?

17

Date Voted: January 13, 2025

42. Proposal: [Constitutional AIP] Activate Arbitrum BoLD + Infura Nova Validator Whitelist (Tally)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: Voting FOR Activate Arbitrum BoLD + Infura Nova Validator Whitelist

    I mean BOLD strengthens security by reducing risks with withdrawals while improving efficiency.

    Moreover, opening up to permissionless validators is a good move - it means more people can join, the system becomes more decentralized, and trust grows because no one can control everything :slight_smile:

    I don’t know Infura that well, but as I searched they’re a trusted name in blockchain. With them onboard, transactions should stay secure and consistent.

43. Proposal: Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0 (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For

  • Rationale: As my previous comment, I support diversifying the treasury and promoting the growth of RWAs on Arbitrum since it will reduce reliance on higher-risk assets and help DAO build a stable reserve fund :slight_smile:

    Plus, STEP 2 could create stable yields (estimated $875k) to cover DAO operational costs. So of course, I voted for on snapshot!

My previous comment here

18

Date Voted: January 17, 2025

44. Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections - New Protocols and Ideas (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Gabriel
  • Rationale: Based on all the applications, I believe Gabriel has a strong vision, with a focus on breakthrough ideas like RWA, DePIN, and user-friendly DeFi applications. So, voted for him!

45. Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections - Education, Community Growth, and Events (Snapshot)

  • Vote: SEEDGov
  • Rationale: I’m voting for SEEDGov. They’ve proven their expertise in governance, education, and community growth, with a transparent and professional approach—not just in Arbitrum DAO, but across other protocols too. All in for them!

46. Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections - Dev Tooling on One and Stylus (Snapshot)

  • Vote: Juandi
  • Rationale: I think Juandi had great experience as a Domain Allocator for Developer Tools at Arbitrum DAO before. Plus, his application shows he really understands the tools developers need. Voted for him!

47. Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections - Gaming (Snapshot)

  • Vote: 50% - Flook, 50% - Erezedor
  • Rationale: I’m supporting both Flook and Erezedor with a 50%-50% split. Flook brings great insights into sustainable economic models, while Erezedor offers strong technical expertise in blockchain and gaming. Both are good :slight_smile:

48. Proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program (Snapshot)

  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: I voted for on Snapshot. I believe this program will not only create a strong mechanism to protect and monitor DAO funds but also enhance Arbitrum’s credibility by showing our commitment to transparency and safeguarding resources.

My previous comment here