Karpatkey Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
,
1

Delegate Information

Name: karpatkey
Delegate Address: 0x583E3EDc26E1B8620341bce90547197bfE2c1ddD
Forum Representatives: @ruca.eth @santinomics @tom4s @coltron.eth @jameskbh
Tally Profile: karpatkey | Tally
Forum: @karpatkey
Twitter: x.com
Languages: English, Portguese and Spanish

Introduction and Experience

karpatkey is a DeFi-native organisation specialising in professional DAO finance through industry-leading research and tooling since 2020. We’ve been working with GnosisDAO, Balancer, ENS, CoW Protocol, and Lido on financial planning, operations, and strategy, diversifying their treasuries into sustainable portfolios of DeFi investments designed to support DAOs in executing their missions.

Why karpatkey

The Arbitrum DAO is well-positioned to lead by taking community-driven governance initiatives and turning them into highly impactful programs that strengthen the protocol’s future.

At karpatkey, our governance team taps our network of engineers, DeFi strategists, data/financial/quant analysts, and accountants for subject matter expertise. As DAO treasury developers and contributors to some of our industry’s most reputable DeFi protocols, our team has the knowledge, trust, and alignment to contribute to Arbitrum’s growth moving forward meaningfully.

We pride ourselves on being hands-on delegates in our areas of expertise and upholding our core values in every area of our participation.

In addition to our well-known DeFi and Treasury-related skills, we are interested in making an impact in broader DAO governance discussions, such as delegate incentive programs as discussed in [RFC-2] and taking a more active role in the Arbitrum Incentive Program Working Group. Our governance team is already attending the weekly Arbitrum calls, recently attended DAO Day spaces, and is committed to increasing involvement.

Delegate Communication Intent

This thread will provide regular updates to the community to ensure transparency and fully communicate our rationale as delegates. These updates will include our explanation for voting and may consist of other announcements related to our activity as an Arbitrum delegate.

Disclosure

We are active contributors to the governance of other protocols, such as AAVE, Uniswap, and Safe. We also manage treasuries or serve on treasury committees for protocols such as Balancer, GnosisDAO, and ENS, and we hold multiple crypto assets in our own treasury. More information is freely available on our treasury reports.

Waiver of Liability

By delegating to karpatkey, you acknowledge and agree that karpatkey will participate on a best-efforts basis and will not be liable for any damages related to participation in the Arbitrum Protocol or this DAO.

12 Likes
2

Voting Actions 2024: January 15th – 19th.

Proposal:Pilot program Council Elections
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We have abstained from this proposal because we are nominees for a seat on this council.

Proposal: Pilot Program Advisor Elections
Vote: Boardroom, JoJo and SeedLATAM
Reasoning: The advisor role is critical for the LTIPP. While all the available candidates are well-qualified, our final selection reflects our belief that these advisors will provide unbiased and high-quality support for LTIPP applicants. Our selection of Boardroom, JoJo, and SeedLatam represents our trust in these candidates based on their current work with the Arbitrum DAO and also their history of work in other communities.

Proposal: Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
Vote: Increase the threshold to 9/12
Reasoning: Given the similar signer’s configuration on both safes, this option makes more sense operationally. It is simpler and does not compromise the security.

1 Like
3

Voting Actions 2024: January 29th – February 2nd.

Proposal: Election of Procurement Committee Members (ADPC)
Vote: 33.3% for Joseph [immutablelawyer], 33.3% for Paul Imseih [pablo], Bernard Schmid [bernard]
Reasoning: While we recognize that all candidates had a strong profile and would be a good fit, our approach for this election was to pick candidates with complementary skills and experiences to compose the committee. In our view, @immutablelawyer, @pablo, and @bernard represent the best choices for this strategy.

Proposal: [Constitutional] Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process
Vote: For
Reasoning: We support these election procedure changes as they ensure a fair process, giving all candidates the same exposure. The other additional procedures (message signing and constitution text changes) also address known issues.

Proposal: [Non-Constitutional]: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are members of the proposed screening committee and, therefore, have abstained.

Proposal: AIP: ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas”
Vote: For
Reasoning: This new version keeps Arbitrum up to date with Ethereum, enabling new features that give developers more tools to develop on all Arbitrum chains.

3 Likes
4

Voting Actions 2024: February 5th – February 9th

Proposal: AIP: Batch Poster Manager and Sequencer Inbox Finality Fix
Vote: For
Reasoning: We support these changes as they aim to bolster the security and resilience of the Arbitrum systems without altering the existing trust model.

Proposal: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We have abstained because there needs to be more discussion and consensus on contributor payments tied to Discord and WeChat activity. Despite the community activity, we are concerned that these metrics presented are not scalable ways to measure contribution.

Proposal: Long Term Incentives Pilot Program
Vote: Yes
Reasoning: The reasoning for support is the same as the snapshot.

5

Voting Actions 2024: February 12th – February 16th

Proposal: Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2
Vote: Against
Reasoning: There is a need for a framework for the gaming vertical on Arbitrum so all projects can have a clear direction of how to present their proposals and what is relevant to their value proposition. Regarding the current ask, we see it as something other than something that the DAO should foster through a direct proposal.

6

Voting Actions 2024 - February 26th – March 1st

Proposal: [Non-constitutional] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We support the work done by Plurality Labs and this proposal introcudes several improvements that will help the delegates (and the DAO) to better follow the development of this milestone.

7

Voting Actions 2024 - March 4th – March 8th

Proposal: ARDC Research Member Election
Vote: Blockworks/Delphi Digital
Reasoning: While both applicants have a sound reputation on the topics under the responsibility of ARDC’s research member, Blockworks/Delphi Digital is better positioned to fulfil all required duties.

Proposal: ARDC DAO Advocate Election
Vote: L2BEAT/Ant Federation
Reasoning: L2BEAT is a perfect fit for the Advocate role, as we have seen on all proposals and governance discussions, and will be a central piece to make the ARDC function in an optimised way.

Proposal: ARDC Security Member Election
Vote: OpenZeppelin
Reasoning: Considering their long-standing reputation in smart contract security, OpenZeppelin is our first choice for this position. We are fully confident in their ability to provide review proposals, code and perform with any project management needs related to the security ember role.

Proposal: ARDC Risk Member Election
Vote: Elect Chaos Labs
Reasoning: Chaos Labs has shown itself to be a reliable partner on other protocols/ecosystems, and we are glad to support their application to the Risk Member position in the ARDC election.

Proposal: [Non-Emergency Action] Fix Fee Oversight ArbOS v20 “Atlas”
Vote: Set L1 surplus fee and L2 minimum base fee.
Reasoning: Despite the significant reduction in fees resulting from this fix, we believe this is the correct action. It will keep Arbitrum competitive against other L2s and promote the long-term residency of the users on the network.

8

Voting Actions 2024 - March 11th – March 15th

Proposal: Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request
Vote: For
Reasoning: The Questbook grant program was well managed, had a large number of applications and showed the potential of this type of program within the Arbitrum Ecosystem. We support this extension and look forward to the new projects that will result from it.

Proposal: [Non-Constitutional AIP] Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime
Vote: For
Reasoning: We support this proposal as it will provide a user-friendly way to execute transactions while the sequencer is down. This is important as we aim to increase the number of non-technical users, and we should provide them with a UX as smoothly as possible.

9

Voting Actions 2024 - March 18th – March 22nd

Proposal: Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO
Vote: For
Reasoning: Tally does a great job handling the on-chain votes for Arbitrum, and we believe that the newly added features are welcome and the asking is reasonable. We support this proposal.

Proposal: Catalyze Arbitrum Gaming: HADOUKEN!
Vote: Against
Reasoning: The value seems off for something that was not tested before. While we agree that the proposal is meaningful, we would like to see something with a smaller scale before going full-throttle.

Proposal: [[Non-constitutional] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge)] (Tally | Arbitrum Proposal)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We supported this proposal on the Snapshot phase and the reasoning remains the same.

10

Voting Actions 2024 - March 25th – March 29th

Proposal: Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)
Vote: For
Reasoning: The STIP Bridge is crucial to continuing the support of incentive programs and increasing the competitiveness of Arbitrum.

Proposal: Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We support the STEP program and believe it will be essential to the plan to diversify the Arbitrum treasury, but as members of the STEP committee, we felt it was appropriate to abstain.

11

Voting Actions 2024 - April 15th – April 19th

Proposal: Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool — Event Horizon
Vote: For
Reasoning: We support this proposal, as it is an approach to increase governance participation that should be tested, and the terms are reasonable.

Proposal: Subsidy Fund for Security Services
Vote: 100% for Do not fund
Reasoning: We believe the value is too high for this first iteration, so we chose “Do not fund”. There are several suggestions in reply to the original post, and we believe a new draft would be the best action course here.

Proposal: Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights & the Right to Privacy
Vote: Did not vote.

12

Voting Actions 2024 - April 22nd - April 26th

Proposal: GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels)
Vote: For
Reasoning: Hack Humanity delivered a successful Arbitrum event during EthDenver. Given EthCC’s relevance in the Ethereum ecosystem, we voted in favor of this proposal.

Proposal: Grant Request - Curve Finance
Vote: For
Reasoning: Curve Finance was one of the main players in Ethereum’s DeFi Summer and remains a top DeFi protocol. We voted in favor of this proposal to create synergies between Curve and Arbitrum that can mutually support each other’s growth.

Proposal: ACryptoS Protocol - Funding Approval for LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Proposal: Connext - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: Smilee Finance - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: CVI.Finance - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Proposal: Rage Trade - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: D2 Finance - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Proposal: Bedrock - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: Yearn Finance LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: Deri Protocol - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Proposal: Tradao - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Proposal: DODO LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: Clipper - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Proposal: Synthetix - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: Sushi - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: For

Proposal: Buffer - LTIPP [Post Council Feedback]
Vote: Abstain

Reasoning: We voted in favor of all LTIPP proposals to create sustainable growth for the Arbitrum ecosystem. We abstained from all other LTIPP proposals.

13

Voting Actions 2024 - April 29th - May 3rd

Proposal: Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We voted in favor of this proposal, renewing our support to key protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth and user engagement.

Proposal: Proposal for Approval of DeDaub as the ADPC Security Advisor
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We decided to abstain as we are not familiar with DeDaub’s work.

14

Voting Actions 2024 - May 6th - 10th

Proposal: Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are open to exploring M&A opportunities for Arbitrum DAO. Therefore, we voted in favour of the Pilot Phase.

Proposal: GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels)
Vote: For
Reasoning: In the previous voting phase we voted in support of this initiative. We are continuing our support with this vote.

15

Voting Actions 2024 - May 20th - 24th

Proposal: Pilot Phase: M&A for Arbitrum DAO
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the initiative, we voted in favour.

16

Voting Actions - May 27th - 31st

Proposal: MUX STIP Bridge Challenge
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with MUX to support a 1.9M ARB follow-up incentive on top of the 6M ARB incentive already received.

Proposal: Stargate STIP Bridge Challenge
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Solv STIP Bridge Challenge
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Sanko GameCorp STIP Bridge Challenge
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Tide STIP Bridge Challenge
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with Tide to support funding.

Proposal: KyberSwap STIP Bridge Challenge
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Gains Network STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with Gains Network to support a 2.25M ARB follow-up incentive on top of the 4.5M ARB incentive already received.

Proposal: Boost (Prev. RabbitHole) STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with Boost to support funding.

Proposal: Thales Protocol STIP Addendum
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Savvy DAO STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with Savvy DAO to support funding.

Proposal: Stake DAO STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with Stake DAO to support funding.

Proposal: Furucombo STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with Furucombo to support funding.

Proposal: Socket Bridge STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We voted Abstain on this proposal due to concerns raised by other delegates regarding transparency and efficiency of distribution with the first STIP round.

Proposal: Angle DAO STIP Addendum
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: OpenOcean STIP Addendum
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We are not sufficiently familiar with OpenOcean to support funding.

Proposal: Thetanuts Finance STIP Addendum
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Dolomite STIP Addendum
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Umami Finance STIP Addendum
Vote: Approve funding
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Arbitrum Multi-sig Support Service (MSS)
Vote: FOR: implement MSS and Reporting
Reasoning: We are in favour of optimising operational costs.

Proposal: Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are supportive of protocols contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, hence our vote in favour.

Proposal: Grant Request - Curve Finance
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the initiative, we voted in favour of the proposal.

Proposal: Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of streamlining the process for Arbitrum users.

Proposal: Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum
Vote: Against
Reasoning: We would like to see an organic strategy aimed at the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem rather than a standalone allocation of funds. For this reason, we voted Against this proposal.

Proposal: Constitutional AIP - Security Council Improvement Proposal
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of improving security.

Proposal: ArbitrumDAO Contribution; Safeguarding Software Developers’ Rights
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for this initiative, we voted in favour.

Proposal: Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of streamlining processes to make them more efficient.

17

Voting Actions June 3rd - 7th

Proposal: Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund
Vote: Against
Reasoning: We believe the administration of the Subsidy Funds for Security Services can be handled by other already-existing committees, hence making the set-up of a new Sub-committee an overhead. For this reason, we voted Against the proposal.

Proposal: AIP: Nova Fee Router Proposal (ArbOS 30)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of streamlining the process of transferring transaction fees collected on Nova to the Arbitrum DAO.

Proposal: AIP: Activate Stylus and Enable Next-Gen WebAssembly Smart Contracts (ArbOS 30)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of upgrading the system to enable for more efficient smart contracts.

Proposal: AIP: Support RIP-7212 for Account Abstraction Wallets (ArbOS 30)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We believe account abstraction wallets are key for the expansion of the crypto industry. For this reason, we voted For this proposal.

1 Like
18

Proposal: AIP: BoLD - permissionless validation for Arbitrum
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of upgrading the protocol.

Proposal: Election of STEP Program Manager
Vote: avantgarde.finance
Reasoning: Avantgarde’s extensive experience in the crypto industry and supporting leading protocols makes them a good fit for the STEP Program manager role.

Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Vote: For [Full Scope]
Reasoning: We voted in favour of the Pilot Phase. However, we want to signal concerns about the initial large amount required for the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This is a slippery slope; while we are supporting the limited-scope of the AVI Pilot Phase, we will be mindful of supporting further proposals.

Proposal: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Bond sentiment.
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of the upgrade and funding the Arbitrum Foundation to run a BoLD validator.

Proposal: AIP: Funds to bootstrap the first BoLD validator - Operational cost sentiment.
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of the upgrade and funding the Arbitrum Foundation to run a BoLD validator.

Proposal: Pilot Stage – Treasury Backed Vaults research and development
Vote: Against
Reasoning: We voted Against the proposal. Since it’s a research-focused initiative we believe it’s out of scope as a Pilot Stage initiative.

Proposal: Kwenta x Perennial: Arbitrum Onboarding Incentives
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the initiative, we voted in favour.

1 Like
19

Voting Actions June 17th - 21st

Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal
Vote: Against
Reasoning: We voted Against this proposal. In our opinion, it is essential to have more insights on Arbitrum DAO’s current spending before approving additional costs.

20

Voting Actions June 24th - 28th

Proposal: ArbitrumHub Evolution: The Next Step in Streamlining Information Access and Raising Awareness for Arbitrum DAO
Vote: Against
Reasoning: While we appreciate the ArbitrumHub concept and implementation, the budget requested for future steps is too high compared to the value added. For this reason, we voted against the proposal.

Proposal: Multisig Support Service (MSS) Elections
Vote: PGov, Dylan Brodeur, JoJo, Griff Green, Reverie, Madison Sinclair, Alex Slobodnik, Cattin, Feems, Sinkas, Serious People, Arana Digital, StableLab, Disruption Joe, Frisson, Lindsey Winder, 404 DAO, Alex Lumley
Reasoning: Our vote was spread across the entities we think would be a good fit for this position.

1 Like