JoJo Delegate Communication Thread

[JoJo]

July 2026 voting

---

---

Offchain votings

[Constitutional] AIP: Automate Timeboost Proceeds Split

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

Vote: For

@JoJo

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

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

Vote: 100% Pedro Breuer

@JoJo

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

Vote: For
Evolution of a proposal posted last year. Posting first the old rationale

@JoJo

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

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