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.