54. Proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget (Snapshot)
Date Voted: February 7, 2025
Vote: For
Rationale: No more to add in my rationale. Voted yes on Snapshot. Stylus is key to keeping Arbitrum competitive, increasing the budget to fund more innovative projects makes sense 
The 4M increase request is reasonable for long-term growth. I appreciate @Entropy’s effort despite the concern of doubling the budget.
Check my feedback on this proposal here
55. Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3 (Tally)
56. Proposal: Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal (Snapshot)
Date Voted: February 18, 2025
Vote: For
Rationale: I’m voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
I believe event benefits and KPIs should be tightly linked, but they feel disconnected here. For example:
Scalable support should answer how it reduces barriers. How many issues get resolved? How does the community self-support?
Measurable impact after an event such as how many builders onboard? How many sign-ups or clicks? Any growth in followers on X or other channels?
Like other delegates, I also disagree with the budget since there’s no clear outcome commitment. More projects joining doesn’t mean they’ll stay or bring long-term value to Arbitrum
To me, the expected results feel too vague. Can’t say yes to this.
Date Voted: February 24, 2025
57. Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto (Snapshot)
58. Proposal: Arbitrum Audit Program (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
Rationale: As per my previous feedback here, $100K per audit seems high while most firms charge $30K-80K, with bulk discounts. So a $10M budget needs stricter cost controls. Also, paying in USD instead of ARB would reduce sell pressure.
I can’t support this in its current form. Voted against!
59. Proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget (Tally)
Vote: For
Rationale: Voted For on Tally with same reason on Snapshot. Stylus is key to keeping Arbitrum competitive, increasing the budget to fund more innovative projects makes sense.
The 4M increase request is reasonable for long-term growth. I appreciate @Entropy’s effort despite the concern of doubling the budget.
60. Proposal: TMC Recommendation (Snapshot)
Date Voted: March 10, 2025
Vote: #1 Deploy Both Strategies, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy, #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy, #4 Deploy Nothing, Abstain
Rationale: With ARB’s price volatility, I know picking just one strategy isn’t easy. I lean toward deploying both, but only if we reassess in 3 months to ensure it’s the right move.
This choice isn’t just about market swings. Like other delegates, I see it this way:
Deploy ARB Strategy: Keeps ARB’s upside, avoids sell pressure.
Deploy Stable Strategy: Gives the DAO a stable reserve, typically lower risk than on-chain yield strategies.
If one outperforms after 3 months, I trust the DAO and delegates will adjust accordingly. Hopefully 3 months is enough to get a read on it
Date Voted: March 17, 2025
61. Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep (Tally)
Vote: For
Rationale: Sticking with my decision from the snapshot vote. Timeboost can bring extra revenue for the DAO instead of just relying on transaction fees.
Also, sweeping 1,885.793 ETH into the treasury gives ArbitrumDAO more funds to grow the ecosystem or support new initiatives 
62. Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp (Tally)
Vote: Against
Rationale: I voted in favor during the Snapshot vote, but I voted against onchain. Well I still think this proposal could help improve DAO participation in the long run.
That said, over the past three months, we’ve already seen an increase in both the quality and number of delegates. The DIP program is running well, with stricter rules but still encouraging new and existing delegates to engage.
And even with the reduced budget, the breakdown still doesn’t feel right to me tbh. 73.5% of the funds go to salaries, with some positions getting above market rates. Advisor making total $20K for just 5 hours a week is hard to justify.
Date Voted: March 24, 2025
63. Proposal: GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH) (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: This is a good way to use the treasury: diversifying revenue while supporting the ecosystem. I’m all for it.
I get the concerns about Fluid being new. But it’s built by the Instadapp team, who’ve been around since 2018, long before ‘DeFi’ was even a thing. In just a few months, Fluid is already challenging Uniswap in trading volume. That speaks volumes.
You can check out my blog to know more about Fluid: Introducing Fluid: Revolutionizing DeFi | Ignas | DeFi
64. Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router (Snapshot)
65. Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program (Tally)
Date Voted: March 31, 2025
66. Proposal: TMC Stablecoin Recommendation (Snapshot)
Vote: YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy
Rationale: Just want to add a little since most of my thoughts have already been covered TMC’s Proposed Allocations - #43 by Ignas
Again, this proposal will bring a more sustainable way to manage Arbitrum’s treasury. In a volatile market where not just ARB but most assets can swing hard, moving some funds into stablecoins helps protect the DAO’s value.
The expected 8-12% (from Karpatkey and others) annual return could fund other initiatives to grow the ecosystem. If this works well, the DAO could scale this strategy with a larger amount in the future.
67. Proposal: TMC ARB Recommendation (Snapshot)
Vote: NO, Deploy Nothing
Rationale: While the proposal introduces potential yield strategies for the treasury but after carefully reviewing the two service providers and the current market conditions, I’m voting NO, Deploy Nothing this proposal.
Well, covered calls could generate up to 30% returns, but that heavily depends on market liquidity and price volatility, which nothing is guaranteed. Locking up 10M ARB in this strategy feels too risky at this stage.
I believe it’s too soon to commit such a large amount. A more cautious approach with further analysis would be wiser. Hopefully 3 months is enough to get a read on it.
68. Proposal: OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections (Snapshot)
70. Proposal: [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols (Snapshot)
Date Voted: April 2, 2025
Vote: For
Rationale: Again, user acquisition is always a top priority for any project, even in Web2 business. After consideration, I think this proposal can offer a good chance to boost Arbitrum’s growth by supporting various projects with clear KPIs and measurable results.
While the budget is high, the DAO cannot afford to sleep the competition. To stay ahead, new approaches need to be tried.
You can’t expect to win or change the situation by doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results 
As a co-founder of a marketing creator studio Pink Brains, maybe I am a little biased, but this proposal gives me good energy. I believe this initiative can strengthen the ecosystem and drive positive results.
Voted yes!
71. Proposal: Security Council Member Election (Tally)
Date Voted: April 14, 2025
Vote: MartinGbz
Rationale: I’m voting for MartinGbz because I trust his hands on experience with securing and managing high value transactions at Aave.
He’s been deeply involved in governance, proposal implementation, and risk mitigation, things that directly impact protocol safety.
I believe he’ll bring a thoughtful, practical approach to the Security Council and genuinely help strengthen the ecosystem.
Date Voted: May 5, 2025
72. Proposal: Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocation (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: I’ll be voting YES on this proposal.
The committee has done a great job reviewing a large number of applications and narrowing it down to three credible providers.
These allocations make sense given the DAO’s goals of capital preservation and generating passive income to support longterm operations.
Appreciate the work from everyone involved in putting this together.
73. Proposal: [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program (Snapshot)
Vote: Yes to both
Rationale: I support this proposal to top-up the HCP and transfer the remaining funds to the TMC.
This is a flexible, one time solution to address the current shortfall and ensure developers’ projects continue without disruption.
This proposal will resolve the immediate issue, but also will serve as an important learning moment for improving risk management practices in the future.
See my comment on this previous proposal about my suggestion
Date Voted: May 12, 2025
74. Proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program (Tally)
Vote: For
Rationale: I voted in favor on Snapshot and will continue to support this proposal onchain.
Besides the positives I shared earlier, I believe Watchdog could set a strong precedent for transparent grant oversight across DAOs, especially with so many funding and grant activities happening right now to support builders and projects in the web3 ecosystem
I agree but wanted to add one point, in high level cases involving large-scale abuse, after internal efforts fail, we could also consider posting the accused party’s info on social media so other DAOs or ecosystem partners can blacklist them.
I don’t think this is overreacting, it’s about protecting our partners and and the whole space from bad actors
Date Voted: May 20, 2025
75. Proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: I’m voting Yes because DRIP brings a focused, measurable approach to growing DeFi on Arbitrum with clear targets and short test seasons.
Even though ARB incentives may resemble early DeFi ponzinomics, they can still drive utility if managed well. I also suggest exploring partnerships with other protocols to share reward costs and enhance user participation.
Check my feedback here DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #14 by Ignas
76. Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 CallistoVote onchain (Tally)
77. Proposal: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction (Snapshot)
Date Voted: May 26, 2025
Vote: For
Rationale: I’m voting Yes because reducing the quorum from 5% to 4.5% helps prevent good proposals from failing due to low turnout, especially when many delegates are losing VP or disengaging.
Compared to other DAOs like Lido, 4.5% is still a healthy quorum. This is a small, reasonable adjustment to keep governance moving.
Date Voted: June 2, 2025
78. Proposal: Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: I am voting yes on this proposal. I believe this is a timely and necessary step to avoid any more unnecessary waste.
Also, since the Foundation has already been involved in most of the checks and verifications (KYC, wallet info, recipient confirmation…), this proposal just formalizes what they have been doing. It’s not about giving more power to the AF.
The current MSS process is quite heavy and with signers in different timezones, signing transactions within 24 hours is almost impossible and not practical.
OpCo will soon take over managing the approvals, and they will have their own handover process. I think this proposal is just making that transition smoother and earlier.
AF has clear internal processes, experienced staff, and professional operations, so payments, handling errors, and communication will be faster and more efficient than with a scattered multisig group.
79. Proposal: Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot (Snapshot)
Vote: B - Reduce delegation to 100K
Rationale: EH’s delegation has moved away from its original goal, and this is a lack of alignment that concerns me.
Reducing the delegation to 100K ARB is a careful and reasonable choice. It respects Event Horizon’s efforts so far but also addresses important concerns about transparency and accountability with the use of AI agents.
This smaller delegation keeps Event Horizon as a meaningful voice in governance without giving them too much influence. It also gives the DAO time to learn more about how the AI system works before trusting it with more voting power.
Check my feedback on the forum:
Date Voted: June 9, 2025
80. Proposal: Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget (Snapshot)
81. Proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) (Tally)
Vote: For
Rationale: Sticking my support on Tally.
DRIP brings a focused, measurable approach to growing DeFi on Arbitrum with clear targets and short test seasons.
Even though ARB incentives may resemble early DeFi ponzinomics, they can still drive utility if managed well. I also suggest exploring partnerships with other protocols to share reward costs and enhance user participation.
Date Voted: June 16, 2025
82. Proposal: Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: I’m voting YES.
These updates will give OpCo the flexibility it needs to operate effectively, support promising initiatives early, and attract top talent with more standard compensation structures.
It also improves the OAT election rules to make sure capable contributors aren’t excluded unnecessarily, while still maintaining safeguards for conflicts of interest.
Overall, this strengthens DAO operations without reducing community oversight.
83. Proposal: Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: Voted yes. This proposal brings real improvements to how delegates and community members engage with governance.
The three features make participation easier, clearer, and more inclusive. It’s a practical upgrade that aligns with Arbitrum’s commitment to better governance infra.
Let’s support this initiative and make sure the work stays active and well maintained over the full 2-year period.
Check my feedback here : [Non-Constitutional] Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations - #25 by Ignas
Date Voted: June 23, 2025
84. Proposal: [Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: Support the proposal.
Arbitrum Nova no longer holds the strategic or economic leverage it once did.
Removing cost cap eliminates unnecessary DAO spending and shows a conscious move to stop funding cost models that no longer align with the DAO’s priorities. If projects still find value in Nova, they can pay market rate costs, just as they would anywhere else in the ecosystem.
There is, of course a trade-off: increasing user facing gas fees may lead to a short term decline in Nova usage. But that outcome is not only acceptable, it’s rational. It reinforces the message that ArbitrumDAO funds are to be allocated where they generate durable value, not to indefinitely sustain legacy cost models.
85. Proposal: Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: Voting yes to adopt the Arbitrum Treasury Management Council (ATMC) as the unified structure for treasury oversight.
Consolidating responsibilities under a clearly defined council, not only improves strategic alignment and execution speed, but also reduces the considerable cost and operational inefficiency associated with multiple disconnected governance bodies.
However, I do want to acknowledge a concern around power concentration. With Entropy Advisors playing both execution and interim orchestration roles, and the absence of a mechanism to replace individual council members, ongoing transparency, reporting, and accountability will be critical.
Overall, the proposal offers a necessary evolution for treasury management at scale. Support its passage and look forward to its measured rollout.
86. Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router (Tally)
Vote: For
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason on Snapshot. I don’t see any big risks or extra costs for the DAO. I’m not super technical too, but I can see that this will make bridging USDS and sUSDS smoother for users through the official Arbitrum Bridge.
Better UX is always a win.
87. Proposal: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction (Tally)
Vote: For
Rationale: Support the proposal with same reason on Snapshot.
Reducing the quorum from 5% to 4.5% helps prevent good proposals from failing due to low turnout, especially when many delegates are losing VP or disengaging.
Compared to other DAOs like Lido, 4.5% is still a healthy quorum. This is a small, reasonable adjustment to keep governance moving.
Date Voted: June 30, 2025
88. Proposal: Audit Committee Technical Expert Elections (Snapshot)
Vote: 50% for Gustavo, 50% for Andrei
Rationale: Both candidates bring exceptional technical expertise and relevant experience that would greatly benefit the Arbitrum Audit Program :).
Gustavo offers deep protocol level knowledge with long term experience in auditing the Arbitrum stack, while Andrei contributes a strong public track record in audit contests and hands on research.
Given the complementary strengths, I have chosen to split my vote 50/50 in support of both candidates.
89. Proposal: Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: Support extending the current AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025. A mid-year transition during active execution would disrupt momentum and set the program back. Maintaining continuity at this stage is the right call.
Check my feedback for more details and suggestion: Proposal: Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence - #11 by Ignas
90. Proposal: Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension (Snapshot)
Date Voted: July 7, 2025
Vote: Extend ARDC V2
Rationale: Supporting the extension of ARDC V2 ensures continuity in critical research, risk, and security work without disruption. The framework is already approved and extending avoids unnecessary delays or overhead.
I vote Option A for efficient execution.