# JoJo Delegate Communication Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Statements\ **Tags:** delegation, governance, delegate-statements\ **Created:** [May 25, 2024, 1:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429 "2024-05-25T13:13:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2025, 7:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/21 "2025-12-06T19:13:09Z")
# **December 2025 voting** * * * * * * ## **Snapshot votings** ### [AGV - 2026 Council Elections](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x12bad84219d04c54cd72231ad8fe883499e85c14762919a06aaa7a251d64b8da) **Vote: David Bolger, Coinflip, Jojo** > [@AGV - 2026 Council Elections](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/agv-2026-council-elections/30268/16): > > I voted 1/3 for David Bolger, 1/3 for Coinflip, and 1/3 for myself. > > I do like what the previous council have achieved over time, despite thinking there is more to do. What most in my opinion fail to understand is that what is conceived as a general underperformance of AGV compared to other AAEs is due to 1) being the first entity created by the DAO 2) coming from a period in which we had a different perception on spending 3) tapping into a vertical that is as of today a contrarian bet. > All of the above, the novelty of having a DAO led fund, and other factors, has created a situation for which the curve has been way steeper than other initiatives. > As of today, a lot of lost ground was recouped. A lot more to do, of course; but what was improved is also thanks to the work of previous council, which I generally wanted to support in term of continuity (and this is also why I voted in favour of both John and Tim). > David is the center of this, being part of OCL, of the gaming arm, and now of the consumer arm. > Coinflip has always had a peculiar mix of institutional presence, protocols’ understanding and political expertise for the DAO. > This is the reason why I wanted to support these two. > > * * * > > Beside the election feedback itself, I would also like to take a moment to post a very personal reflection. > > > [@AGV - 2026 Council Elections](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/agv-2026-council-elections/30268/11): > > > > I don’t typically publicly share my voting reasoning, but felt appropriate here. > > > > I’ve distributed my votes equally between David Bolger, Greg Canessa, and Jojo. While I’m very much hoping to continue representing the DAO in this capacity, I didn’t feel comfortable using significant voting power to vote for a single candidate or for myself, even though it’s permitted. Others may and that’s there choice. > > > > The voting structure has limitations. We want diverse oversight skills for these programs, but we can’t predict the final composition. Given these constraints, I’ve placed my votes with the candidates outside of myself I’m most confident will Effectively represent and advocate for both the DAO and program success. > > > > coin > > > > #Arbitrum Everywhere > > As Coinflip stated here everybody can use their voting power as they best see fit, accordingly to the code of conduct. We have had, in this and other elections, people voting for themself only, people voting for themself and others, people voting only for others or people abstaining by voting for all candidates. > All is possible as of today, and is also fine. > > That said, there is a consideration to be made for an approach that overarchingly puts the DAO first. > An approach worth chasing, even if it means putting aside the will of yourself as a single, to counterbalance various contextual limitations: technical on voting platform, human due to clustering of candidates in a single category and lack of diversity in others, environmental when the community is polarized on sensible topics and naturally tends to shift this polarization into other discussions that are unrelated but equally if not more important. > > Regardless of the specificity of this vote, what we are seeing here is in my opinion an example of this behaviour. At the risk of sounding over the line or even sentimental, being preserving toward the DAO as a delegate, and graceful as a human being, is something that, due to both internal and external factors, as well as overall context, we are losing a bit over time in Arbitrum, and we should collectively strive to regain. > > Thanks for this vote and this rationale. ### [Rewarding Active Delegates (RAD) Program](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xa06500740b56c647f25bd3edba80bf05b00140afe99d6b0d27c0f1dc93287901) **Vote: For** I have expressed my opinion in the thread on several specific details of this proposal; that said, I am voting in favour. The proposal goes in the right direction of both predictability and simplicity while at the same time has some flexibility thanks to the involvement of OpCo. We will have to see how the PM will handle this flexibility with a slightly reduced scope compared to previous iterations; that said is definitely a step in the right direction while we wait for a contributor program. I am personally slight concerned for the financial side tho: having a budget fully in ARB while payout is calculated in USD can create weird situations in future. > [@Rewarding Active Delegates (RAD) Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rewarding-active-delegates-rad-program/30249/6): > > In here, I do see > > - a quarterly budget in USD > - a payout cap in USD > > But we have ARB token as reserve.There is a mismatch in this accounting and operational system that will lead to the problems we have seen in several programs such as the grant ones based and denominated in ARB. * * * ## **Tally votings** ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Activate ArbOS 51 (Dia) and Gas Pricing Updates](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/53154361738756237993090798888616593723057470462495169047773178676976253908001?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) Confirming my previous snapshot votes since there are no changes. Pasting both here for reference. > [@JoJo](#): > > Technical proposal, being accelerated due to the temp check likely being a validation/green light from the DAO to OCL to start working on the Arb OS 50 upgrades before Fusaka. Useless to say all the proposed upgrades align with what we want to technically achieve in Ethereum, and we are looking forward to the audit from Trailbits. > [@JoJo](#): > > This technical proposal brings several changes that should improve the overall UX of users. I do look forward to not have to pay +5$ in transaction fees in arbitrum in time of turmoil and these updates seem to address these and other situations. I also think the increase of base fee is probably good enough but I do expect to have this analysed in six months from now to understand the implication post implementation. ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2026, 4:27pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/22 "2026-02-06T16:27:00Z")
# **January 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Snapshot votings** ### [[Constitutional] DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x3ac48360cb2cf6f921e391a97416a53c8ca442e3a621a9f7bb406719a8f8034d) **Vote: For** The new DVP is highly needed with the constant unlock of ARB and so the higher circulating supply. While OCL has done a great job in unlocking new delegations, we do need to address potential lock-in situations. The parameters are good enough to start, with the goal of monitoring them and adjust them over time. * * * * * * ## **Tally votings** n/a ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2026, 11:47am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/23 "2026-02-27T11:47:42Z")
# **March 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Snapshot votings** ### [Automate the Consolidation of Idle Funds into the Treasury Management Portfolio](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x703ef86b79590b07f770dd2369666085e112e2a8998a7e2f8011ed755611968c) **Vote: Abstain** > [@Automate the Consolidation of Idle Funds into the Treasury Management Portfolio](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/automate-the-consolidation-of-idle-funds-into-the-treasury-management-portfolio/30579/2): > > Thanks for the proposal. It does makes a lot of sense, in general, to allocate idle stables into yield bearing strategies, with the caveat of risk profile and liquidity being compatible and of secondary order to the operational needs of the programs involved. > > I am just chiming in with a note which was already disclosed in private to Entropy: while, as stated, I agree on the general idea, we are currently discussing with OpCo first, and likely DAO later, about either a potential extention of season 3 or renewal. S3 and S2 funds would be part of this. > > Albeit it might not happen, moving the funds before this discussion is over would be not ideal; that said, while is difficult to do hard projections, I do think that any decision, in favour of against, will likely happen before or around the second half of April on this very topic. > [@Automate the Consolidation of Idle Funds into the Treasury Management Portfolio](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/automate-the-consolidation-of-idle-funds-into-the-treasury-management-portfolio/30579/14): > > I’m abstaining on this proposal. > > As stated above, I do see value in an overall process that puts liquid funds at use right away, especially in a market such the one we have. At the same time, I don’t think that this justify adding overhead to any specific plan from delegates or other entities; specifically, as mentioned, there is an ongoing discussion about continuation of the grant program using funds from both S2 and S3. Having had that resolved before calling on this vote would have been ideal, to avoid double transfer if any. > > This proposal will pass, and is fine. If the grant program will be renewed, in the new vote it will be specified how the portion of funds of S2 will have to be sent back to it from the ATMC, alongside S3 funds being rolled. * * * * * * ## **Tally votings** ### [[Constitutional] DVP Quorum for ArbitrumDAO: Implementation & Parameters](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/112177996398925212273579485756315626637025938627124330171390356044681347897430?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** Confirming the snapshot vote. The changes in the constitution seems consistent with the proposal. ### [Security Council Election 5 - Nominee](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council/election/5/round-1) **Vote: Tino (1M), Michael Lewellen (1M), Bartek (500k)** I have split my vote between the 3 candidates I would like to see in the next phase. For both Tino and Michael, I have had the pleasure to work with them during the Stylus Sprint Grant Program. I saw their ability to review technical milestones, and I am confident on their ability. Plus, Michael has already served on the security council, and Tino works for SeedGOV, and entity I truly respect in crypto. Bartek is my third choice since I am a big fan of what L2Beat is doing, and the grounded approach they have and experience makes him a must. ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2026, 9:55am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/24 "2026-03-27T09:55:16Z")
# **April 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Snapshot votings** ### [Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO Procedures to Become Living Documents](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xf78c223115031090b918ea09fa585d340718a426a21eb1556d81d19892e10b39) **Vote: For** It was not necessary to have this doc in the constitution and I am glad is not there; the optimistical updates managed by opco will also reduce friction when we will need to modify the CoC. All in all a lot of quality of life updates here. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: ArbOS 60 Elara](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x04d6219c392f3f6187779f609d6cad21e3b3d6091809355ad12ba6bb39b55834) **Vote: For** Key upgrade for Arbitrum. The dynamic price algo should give more predictability in all scenarios, but I also quite excited by the Arbitrum API, which implicitly will increase business appealing for the Arbi stack, with the ability to spin up chains on top of alternative settling layers with an easier engineering effort. And, finally, the ability to collect a priority fee on these new chains. All these changes are consistent with the business approach of Arbitrum. ### [Transfer 6,000 ETH and Idle Stablecoins from the Treasury to the Treasury Management Portfolio](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x25877ad1de4b9232af7a744dbd9ffb1b023c385aaf15c96c5b016859926416a2) **Vote: For** Pretty straightforward to support. 6000 ETH sitting idle in the treasury earning nothing is hard to justify, with 4.81% we are looking at almost 300 eth per year in yield. ### [Improvements to the Arbitrum Audit Program](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xa8d3dbf1b6cbe81847b5165da5d194d2fc554ae223f6ccf77f53c3fdecc6987e) **Vote: For** Two straightforward operational fixes backed by data now that the program has been running for a while. The exclusivity requirement was never feasible in the first place in a multichain world. The AI security scan pilot is quite interesting and is where the industry is going, good for early-stage teams not yet audited nor audit ready. * * * * * * ## **Tally votings** ### [Security Council Election 5 - Elections](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council/election/5/round-2) **Vote: Tino (1M), Michael Lewellen (1M), Bartek (500k)** Confirming the previous round of votes, with the same rationale: Tino and Michael due to the fact I worked on technical proposals with both, Bartek being a representative of L2Beat with one of the best security posture approach around L2 in the world. One thing I want to highlight: with only 2.5M voting power, i decided to just keep focusing on a smaller cohort of candidate, hoping to help them being elected in the security council. ---
**Author:** ![MconnectDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mconnectdao/32/16356_2.png) [@MconnectDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/MconnectDAO)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2026, 3:03am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/25 "2026-03-28T03:03:51Z")
Hi JoJo, I’m Manoj (mconnectdao), a non‑native contributor and governance researcher from India, actively following Arbitrum’s programs (STIP/LTIPP, Security Council, MSS, etc.). I’ve been reading your monthly rationales for a while and they are very helpful to understand how an engaged delegate thinks across many different proposal types. arbitrum One thing I appreciate is how you separate “program‑level design” questions (STIP, LTIPP, MSS structure, committee trust, neutrality) from individual protocol performance. This kind of reasoning is very valuable for smaller tokenholders and non‑native contributors who may not have the same context but want to vote more intentionally. Going forward, I’d be very interested in: more explicit notes when you abstain due to conflicts or advisory roles, and how you think about neutrality vs. speaking up when there is potential misconduct; any thoughts you have on making complex programs (like MSS, LTIPP, M&A pilot) easier to follow for non‑native speakers who struggle on live calls but read the forum closely. If you ever experiment with formats like short “plain‑language” summaries or Q&A for smaller voters, I’d be happy to participate or give feedback from the non‑native / emerging‑market perspective. @JoJo ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2026, 10:08am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/26 "2026-04-27T10:08:03Z")
# **May 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Snapshot votings** ### [Approve Release of Frozen ETH](https://snapshot.org/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb32581468bece42245fa267ea86156a621ae77f61bb866118189b5d50155b051) **Vote: For** While the idea is straightforward, the vote is not. As most, I do support an expedite release of funds to the DeFi United initiative to restore confidence in both DeFi, AAVE and Arbitrum. That said, there is a huge gap in the indemnification of delegates; so far the Aave labs team has only mentioned Foundation, OCL and the security council. There has been what seems like an ambulance chaser type of lawsuite, to whom Aave recently responded. I do hope we get more clarity before the tally vote, which will be the real test of the situation. And I do expect both the Foundation and OCL to come forward as the de facto leader of the ecosystem; the risk for delegates is still there, and I reserve the ability to vote Abstain on-chain or even not vote at all. * * * * * * ## **Tally votings** ### [Transfer 6,000 ETH and Idle Stablecoins from the Treasury to the Treasury Management Portfolio](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/86654545843645364200491220873325841239317939837732580673532485559601859962180?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** It’s a pretty straightforward vote. The allocation makes sense to put the Eth at work; at the same time, what recently happened with AAVE means that we have to be even more risk-adverse. Entropy will likely take the situation very seriously and balance the yield generated vs the safety assumption one has to make nowadays with DeFi. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Amended Release of Frozen ETH Pursuant to Court Order](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/71236395575275509514809232906539225896862899916501711888027988560774655719183?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** Confirming snapshot vote. Extremely happy that AAVE took measures to safeguards the Arbitrum ecosystem and specifically the delegates by moving fast in court: I didn’t expect for this to happen, at least during the period of voting. Supporting the resolution even more. Also supporting the fact that we can move beyond constitutional timing if that means doing what is the best for the whole ecosystem. LFG. ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 9:22am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/27 "2026-06-02T09:22:18Z")
# **June 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Snapshot votings** ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Minimize Arbitrum Nova](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x002b8264f83d19f88d17dc48a92d1e92638285a6592c491255fa7b14c955da81) **Vote: For** I do support the orderly wind down of Nova, starting from this. As BW we also got consulted by OCL on possibilities of usage of this chain several months ago which, regardless of the outcome, I see as a testify of the effort to try and revive it. In the end, between One and the Orbit stack, Nova has little reasons to exist anymore and is just becoming a cost center and creating fragmentation. ### [Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x56c7306391fa75a295fc2b63d9e80090bc7a42677bbd07f105a89f76c31778a3) **Vote: For** > [@Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/continued-funding-for-the-arbitrum-foundation/30908/29): > > This was an extremely conflicted vote for me. > > I decided to vote in favour. > > I can say that the feedback from Entropy helped me shape my own view here. > > I strongly agree with Matt, Sam & Co.: to be blunt, we can’t keep going as we are now. We are in a spending review period across the whole industry. In Arbitrum specifically, we have seen several initiatives not being renewed or being shut down, with potentially more to follow. > > The Foundation’s request is somewhat of an outlier here. While I do see that the total amount requested, $45M, is below the $65M from the previous two years, we have: > > - a request that is generally extremely high on an absolute basis, especially on the ARB side, and very heavy on the ATM side, basically cancelling out more than what we have earned so far since inception; > - a discount that, while I am sure reflects greater efficiency from the Foundation, does not take into account what AF has spent over the years as a cost related to OCL, which, as we see above, might potentially come to the DAO at a later stage for further funding. > > Effectively, we cannot know whether this is simply a discount, or whether AF has renegotiated the deal with OCL in a way that means the cost will now be accrued directly by the DAO, with no intermediary. > > I do think we need the Foundation today. I think about the scenario of not funding them now, having them devise a plan over the next 30 to 60 days, and then having them come back to us with a plan to further cut headcount, events, and partnerships, beyond what has already happened. I am unsure whether the following 12 months would be better or worse for Arbitrum in that scenario. > > I do think we have to fight today to maintain the market share and mindshare we have, especially with new ecosystems emerging on top of us and absorbing liquidity, reputation, and opportunities, such as Hyperliquid. > > This is why, like Entropy, I am in favour of this financing today. But I do expect the Foundation to spend the year: > > - continuing to grow the pie for us; > - cutting spending that, one year from now, will be much more difficult to approve than it is today. > > There would be a lot to say here. A lot to say about the amount of ARB currently held by the Foundation, how it has been spent in the past, and how we will see these 23M ARB being deployed. There would also be more to say about KPIs. I do agree that a good part of Arbitrum’s success is also due to the Foundation, but I am also mindful of the risk of falling into a “post hoc, propter hoc” mentality, especially with unclear transparency reports that should, in my opinion, be better addressed in the future. > > All of this, though, is secondary to the overarching thesis / idea I mentioned above. > > **My expectation is that, one year from now, we will come back to a new request with:** > > - clearer transparency reports compared to what we have historically had; > - better disclosure of both successes and failures; > - better coordination with the different AAEs. We have started now, also thanks to OpCo and with AF/OCL members being involved, but it is a long road; > - a leaner budget, since what we are granting today likely cannot be granted again one year from now. > > I am also expecting, hoping, and believing in a Foundation that will keep leading the ecosystem with even greater credibility, and that will continue to generate, in coordination with OCL, Entropy, and OpCo, success stories like Robinhood and others that are coming our way. > > **Onwards** ### [**[Constitutional] AIP: Transition Arbitrum One ordering policy to Priority Gas Auctions (PGA)**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb380013efad355a9888561e1a108f0e6344f2e39c11087bb9043378d14ecec4d) **Vote: For** The change makes sense. At the time, there was a lot of backlash in regard to timeboost, which was seen by several protocols as not the most optimal solution. I am glad we are moving toward something that is better understood and utilized by capital allocator; while timeboost was extremely interesting, it won’t have likely brought more revenue to our chain compared to the new proposed solution. ### [**Extending DRIP’s Mandate**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xa69fce8c756ac96160ddb6ac09653d3254415d046fdd43e5876663e9f343f183) **Vote: For** Is sensible to keep going with the program; Entropy is the only entity, today, that can manage any incentive and can target growth through ARB distribution and utilization due to their proximity to OCL at this point. And we do need to extend the program, despite the bear market we are seeing. * * * * * * ## **Tally votings** ### [Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/21861170607500194610699142421898826942478361357343425061227227766726035674989?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** No change compared to snapshot. Still have the same fundamental questions of the offchain votes, that can’t be addressed neither today nor tomorrow nor in between the two votes. We will all have to work together to curb down entities’ expenses and find the right balance for our ecosystem. ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2026, 2:45pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/28 "2026-07-04T14:45:55Z")
# **July 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Offchain votings** ### [**[Constitutional] AIP: Automate Timeboost Proceeds Split**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x5b67a2c7c8f9b0e4ee46d2e7e9d580c90b069e0bbf8ed1a1e025a372886aabc4) **Vote: For** We do need to implement the Arbitrum Developer Guild. As far as I know, it never went live; I do hope this happen soon to support the ecosystem. That said, we do need to finance it and we do need a portion of the revenue of the DAO business’ lines to go to it. So, voting in favour, and hoping the Foundation will make the ADG go live soon. ### [**AGV Wind-Down: Structured Transition & Return of Capital to the DAO Treasury**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x05dcd430c800d5cd0763cd2424033739abab0f3117ee7423d90f59ef56f9b41d) **Vote: For** > [@AGV Wind-Down: Structured Transition & Return of Capital to the DAO Treasury](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/agv-wind-down-structured-transition-return-of-capital-to-the-dao-treasury/31012/5): > > I am voting in favour of this proposal. > > For context, I was elected to the AGV Council in December 2025 and onboarded in January 2026, so I have had the opportunity to observe the program’s operations and due diligence process from the inside, albeit for a relatively short period. > > It is understandable to feel a sense of loss when an initiative of this scale and ambition has to be scoped down, particularly given the energy, time, and involvement that many people have poured into it, from both the AGV team, OCL people, Foundation members and even delegates. > That said, I believe this is the right call. The consumer and gaming verticals that AGV was built around were a natural fit for the previous iteration of Arbitrum as an ecosystem. As the DAO’s strategic direction has become more business-oriented, the original thesis no longer aligns cleanly with current priorities. I want to be clear: i don’t think it was wrong, just, the the industry itself has shifted, and the ecosystem’s mission and vision have evolved accordingly. > > None of this diminishes the quality of the work done. The AGV team operated with a level of rigour and discipline that I had the honour to witness first-hand. The due diligence conducted by Rick, Dan, and Michael, together with Tammy’s support on the legal side, was extremely deep and profound, more than what you would have expected from the outside. Despite the fact that this would have been the year of the fund’s most significant capital deployment, the pipeline already contains several highly promising opportunities that are a reflection of this process and of the overall team’s judgment. My time working alongside them, while brief, was both a pleasure and also a learning experience. > > I am glad that the proposal can retain some of this talent, albeit in a reduced capacity, to manage the existing portfolio and evaluate follow-on investments (for people unaware, this is the norm in venture environments). It’s also the right approach: we want to maximise the chances of generating meaningful returns, potentially multiples of what has been deployed, and continuing to support the winners in the portfolio is the best way to do that. AGV current team is the one that has the best knowledge to select these winners. > > As a closing note, while I do support the wind-down, it would have been fascinating to see where the fund stood eighteen months from now. The overarching alignment of ecosystem entities to a coherent mission that is consistent in its strategy and execution plan matters more than any single program or any secondary goal. Crypto changed, Arbitrum’s priorities changed with it, and this proposal is effectively a consequence of this. > > * * * > > _On a personal note, I want to thank Dan, Rick, Michael, and Tammy, as well as my council colleagues John, Tim, and David, for making my tenure an experience that, even if brief, was well worth undertaking. The AGV team was able to assemble a pack of people that are not only extremely competent, but also wonderful human beings. This is not a given, and I am thankful for that._ ### [**Fast Feed: Constitutional AIP**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xe98ec21fc4212d98ef86d513b69e24c7d082359d735632bb4e4d9df3e857fde9) **Vote: For** No reason to vote against. While we don’t know the cost that OCL has undertaken to implement it, we can assume the projected ROI is also about proper pitching of Arbitrum as home for business and institutions. And to be fair, this is the type of data that can better serve big players and not retail ones. So, voting in favour. ### [**OAT Elections**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xf2ca6637ad74a993354006def22c1e2a64468c269883616353e0c9fe8b4f4fd4) **Vote: 100% Pedro Breuer** > [@Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) - June 2026 Elections Overview](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/oversight-and-transparency-committee-oat-june-2026-elections-overview/30872/10): > > I am voting 100% for pedrob. > > While this might seems odd for several reasons (ability of self voting, voting only for one candidate), I will briefly walk you through my experience with the OAT in the last 9 months. > > Pedro has always been present and available to jump in a call whenever it was needed, either to discuss what we needed for the grants program or for other programs and ideas. He obviously was there representing the whole council; but his ability to always be there to listen to questions and requests, and be a bridge for the rest of the members, has been IMHO very important. Is just too easy to get in councils and then get into an ivory tower; he instead always provided feedback and dedicated a lot of time to hear from people of the DAO. > I have worked with him in other capacities, namely during LTIPP, so I always knew he would have been the right fit for the job, due to his approach, his experience as a lawyer, his past work with seed and the dao, and also due to him being a good human being. My experience confirmed it all. > > Note that the above is not a critique to the other members to whom i got in contact (Frisson, AJ, Patrick). On the contrary, I also want both AJ and Patrick being elected. While a lot of folks think that AAEs should give more independence to OpCo, and some think there was margin of improvement in the previous tenure, my personal take is that we do need a direct connection with Foundation and OCL. It’s still too complex to coordinate everyone, there are huge communication’s gaps to be filled, and for this reason there is margin to achieve a lot of efficiency. But I also do think that they _will_ get elected, and so I am directing all my votes to the person I think should continue his mandate in the next year. ### [**[Constitutional] AIP: Ratification of Security Council Election Process Improvements**](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xe9373b2226ab14005ae14075953e5755448d7ac7dc61a21a9c1d51dcae427e42) **Vote: For** Evolution of a proposal posted last year. Posting first the old rationale > [@\[Constitutional\] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements \[OLD\]](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-security-council-election-process-improvements-old/29848/4): > > Thanks for the proposal. I think the changes are generally consistent with the changes we are seeing broadly in the DAO and DAO related councils, initiatives etc, specifically > > - dropping amount of votes needed to do X > - increasing time in the role. > > In particular > > 1. the reduction from 0.2% to 0.1% seems to address the barrier of rising quorum. In favour > 2. term of 1y vs 6 months, allows for less operational burden in the DAO. In favour. > 3. auto pass of previous security council members: in general if they were elected they are _likely_ still good enough for the council. In favour. > > Would like to expand on last point, especially for answering 0xDonPepe and jameskbh above. > While I do see a scenario in which you want to put checks and balances, it is quite likely that any incumbent going again for nominee would pass that phase. > But: passing that phase means, here, to get that 0.1% of total votable supply, that potentially can’t go to other candidates. To say in other terms, if we have a low turnaround of voting in security elections (or a rising quorum which gets us to the same result), allowing incumbent already vetted to not have to go through that again means increasing the chance to have fresh names for the actual election. > > I do see, tho, a situation in which an old incumbent could not be deemed suitable anymore due to new reasons. But I guess there is still the ability, from the Arbitrum Foundation, to cut a name from the final phase of election like it happened a few elections ago for the vp of security / security officer (can’t remember the title sorry) of polygon, right? This should preserve us from the scenario in which an old incumbent has a free pass but is not suitable anymore for whatever reason written in the constitution. Now we do have an omission of previous Council members having the ability to bypass the initial election screening due to the lower threshold (0.2 to 0.1%). It’s sensible: lower threshold → you can go through the initial screening. There is also more verbage and framework related to key rotation. All in all, i support this proposal, especially on the longer term of mandate which is key at this level of maturity. * * * * * * ## **Onchain votings** ### [**Constitutional AIP: ArbOS61 Elara Upgrade**](https://alt.gov.arbitrum.foundation/proposal/7191014407719621170610709569285477750369874509305441081488686529382763374426?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9&tab=stages) **Vote: For** Worth noticing how OCL decided to _not_ include the dynamic pricing after the study from entropy; I do think we need caution when we introduce changes that can strongly affect the ecosystem (see timeboost), and so I am totally in favour of taking more time to analyse the effects. Reposting the April’s rationale here for reference. > [@JoJo](#): > > Key upgrade for Arbitrum. The dynamic price algo should give more predictability in all scenarios, but I also quite excited by the Arbitrum API, which implicitly will increase business appealing for the Arbi stack, with the ability to spin up chains on top of alternative settling layers with an easier engineering effort. And, finally, the ability to collect a priority fee on these new chains. All these changes are consistent with the business approach of Arbitrum. n/a ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2026, 7:10am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/29 "2026-08-01T07:10:11Z")
# **August 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Offchain votings** ### **[Arbitrum Security Program](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x666a31ac239818a8b90f9d5784adad5974009fe6254da9c3be7f39aed57391bc)** **Vote: For** The change is in my opinion reasonable. We are aggregating all pillars of security into a single program, which will cover also bug bounty and security council, plus add AI audits. It can make sense, as long as the people involved with it have the right security knowledge and mindset. Overall, not against. * * * * * * ## **Onchain votings** ### **[[Constitutional] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements](https://alt.gov.arbitrum.foundation/proposal/99505320587245662570748490045867467578602042886347829693486500764737017017943?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07ded9dc292157749b6fd268e37df6ea38395b9)** **Vote: For** No change in rationale compared to the offchain vote ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2026, 11:04am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429/30 "2026-08-24T11:04:59Z")
# **September 2026 voting** * * * * * * ## **Offchain votings** ### **[Banning projects identified in the high-severity Watchdog Program cases - APX Finance](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xddcea6a783aaabce1d616508999078e45ca95932b2b536c0620a9f5e57fa1899)** **Vote: For** ### **[Banning projects identified in the high-severity Watchdog Program cases - Limitless](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x57e83d4df2139ff67626852cf2693146318492cc973ba5084a2a2625e78578a9)** **Vote: For** ### **[Banning projects identified in the high-severity Watchdog Program cases - Good Entry](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x472fb3b40d3df9b1a65de03b85e4867a76f7b1ec014e2d69f347256b0d08184c)** **Vote: For** Clustering the three votes with a single rationale because is the same: these projects misused the funds. Note that, is not that the rewards are pending for users (like we have in several other projects that did participate to STIP/LTIPP), they were literally syphoned out to cexes. This behaviour is also, if I can add, shortsighed: for a few thousands dollars these projects are closing the door to one of the most important ecosystem. Strongly in favour on the initiative * * * * * * ## **Onchain votings** ### **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: Authorize Priority Gas Auctions and Establish the Fast Feed](https://alt.gov.arbitrum.foundation/proposal/104933844856336554027758452704713321330340501652892001249184191934279866979282?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07ded9dc292157749b6fd268e37df6ea38395b9)** **Vote: For** No change in rationale compared to the two offchain votes. Reposting rationale in here: > [@JoJo](#): > > No reason to vote against. While we don’t know the cost that OCL has undertaken to implement it, we can assume the projected ROI is also about proper pitching of Arbitrum as home for business and institutions. And to be fair, this is the type of data that can better serve big players and not retail ones. So, voting in favour. > [@JoJo](#): > > The change makes sense. At the time, there was a lot of backlash in regard to timeboost, which was seen by several protocols as not the most optimal solution. I am glad we are moving toward something that is better understood and utilized by capital allocator; while timeboost was extremely interesting, it won’t have likely brought more revenue to our chain compared to the new proposed solution. Will be interesting to see in 6 months from now how the onchain economy will change due to these. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/jojo-delegate-communication-thread/24429.md?page=1)