JoJo Delegate Communication Thread

[JoJo]

June 2026 voting

---

---

Snapshot votings

[Constitutional] AIP: Minimize Arbitrum Nova

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

Vote: For

@JoJo

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)

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

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

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.