Voting Actions January 27th - 31st
Proposal: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead
Vote: Against
Reasoning: While we believe ArbitrumHub provides meaningful value to the community by simplifying access to key information for users and builders, we voted against the proposal in its current format. Coordinating various marketing initiatives under a unified strategy is essential to ensure a more cohesive and effective approach to ecosystem growth.
Proposal: Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the Arbitrum Mission, Vision and Purpose initiative, we believe Strategic Objective Settings is a valuable next step to finding coordination and implementing effective execution within the DAO.
Voting Actions February 3rd - 7th
Proposal: Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
Vote: For
Reasoning: We are in favour of collecting the Nova fees and transferring them to the DAO treasury.
Proposal: OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the OpCo initiative, we voted in favour. We believe better coordination among DAO delegates and service providers would enable the DAO to deliver better results, more efficiently. The OpCo initiative aims to make this happen.
Proposal: Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the STEP program, we voted in favour.
Voting Actions February 10th - 14th
Proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Vote: For
Reasoning: We believe Stylus is a key competitive advantage for Arbitrum, other than an innovative tool with the ability to onboard more developers into the ecosystem. We appreciate the reasoning behind extending the budget to support additional valuable initiatives. Based on this, we voted in favour.
Proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
Vote: For
Reasoning: This grant program provided valuable contributions in its two previous seasons and we are confident season 3 will be similarly successful. We think JoJo is a great fit for leading the program and are supportive of each track lead. For these reasons, we voted in favour.
Voting Actions February 17th - 21st
Proposal: Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
Vote: Against
Rationale: We believe this initiative is lacking metrics in support of itself and the authors rushed to a Snapshot vote, failing to incorporate the suggestions provided by delegates. Because of this, we voted against it.
Voting Actions February 24th - 28th
Proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for the budget increase, we voted in favour.
Proposal: Arbitrum Audit Program
Vote: For
Reasoning: We believe subsidising audit costs is an effective way to retain builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Indeed, other DAOs, such as Optimism and Uniswap, have adopted this strategy. For this reason, we voted in favour.
However, this initiative’s funding allocation is significantly higher than that of similar initiatives. Therefore, we strongly encourage timely and transparent reporting.
Voting Actions March 10th - 14th
Proposal: TMC Recommendation
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: Because karpatkey would directly benefit from this initiative, we abstained from the vote.
Voting Actions March 17th - 21st
Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
Vote: For
Reasoning: We believe the Governance Bootcamp is an effective initiative to onboard people into Arbitrum DAO, which will then grow into direct DAO contributors, delegates or governance analysts for organisations involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem. For this reason, we voted in favour.
Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for this initiative, we voted in favour.
Voting Actions March 24th - 28th
Proposal: GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)
Vote: For, Deploy Capital
Reasoning: We believe active use of the assets in the Arbitrum DAO’s treasury positively contributes to the project’s long-term sustainability. While we wish the DAO had adopted a more comprehensive and structured strategy towards treasury management, we appreciate that this is the first step toward financial optimisation and sustainability. For this reason, we voted in favour.
Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
Vote: For
Reasoning: DeFi is one of the key verticals for the Arbitrum ecosystem. This initiative is a strategic move to facilitate the further growth of a leading DeFi project on the chain, creating a unique opportunity for Arbitrum to capture market share over its competitors. For this reason, we voted in favour.
Proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program
Vote: For
Reasoning: The Audit Program effectively supports builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem in the initial stages of project launch. Security audits are essential to delivering high-quality and secure applications, but due to their cost, they represent a high barrier for early-stage projects. For this reason, we voted in favour.
Proposal: Nominee Selection for the Security Council
Vote: Certora and MartinGbz
Reasoning: We have direct experience with both Certora and MartinGbz (part of ACI), and we believe they would be a good fit for the Security Council Nomination.
Voting Actions March 31st - April 4th
Proposal: [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
Vote: For
Reasoning: The previous ARB incentive programs presented various problems, that limited their effectiveness in growing the DeFi ecosystem in Arbitrum. This proposal clearly explains why proactive offchain outreach is key and we believe it proposes a valuable solution to improve incentive programs moving forward. For this reason, we voted in favour.
Proposal: OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
Vote: Edgar Prediger, Federico Daffina, Frisson
Reasoning: We believe these individuals have a strong background of contributing to leading DAOs and could be a value-add for the OAT.
Proposal: TMC Stablecoin Recommendation
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: Due to karpatkey directly benefitting from this initiative, we voted Abstain.
Proposal: TMC ARB Recommendation
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: Due to karpatkey directly benefitting from this initiative, we voted Abstain.
Voting Actions April 14th - 18th
Proposal: Security Council Member Election
Vote: Certora, MartinGbz
Reasoning: In line with our vote during round 1, we voted for Certora and MartinGbz as we believe they would be a good fit for the role.
Voting Actions May 5th - 9th
Proposal: Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations
Vote: Abstain
Reasoning: We voted to abstain to avoid conflicts of interest.
Proposal: [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
Vote: Yes to both
Reasoning: We voted yes to both as this shortcoming should not affect grantees and it is reasonable that any leftover funds are then transferred to the TMC.
Voting Actions May 12th - 16th
Proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
Vote: For
Reasoning: Continuing our support for this initiative, we voted in favour.
Proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
Vote: For
Reasoning: We voted in favour of the proposal as it represents an important upgrade for Arbitrum, which enables its chains to benefit from the Pectra network upgrade of Ethereum.
Proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
Vote: For
Reasoning: We strongly support dedicating more resources to restoring Arbitrum’s leading position in the DeFi ecosystem. We appreciate that the program is shaped by deep analysis and subject-matter expertise—a key element that was notably missing from previous incentive efforts. For this reason, we voted in favour of the proposal.
Voting Actions May 18th - 23rd
Proposal: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
Vote: Against
Reasoning: While we understand the need to reduce the constitutional quorum to enable necessary protocol upgrades, we believe the Arbitrum Foundation and delegates should first prioritise implementing some of the ARDC’s recommendations. We suggest experimenting with these softer measures before resorting to a quorum reduction. We are open to change our vote in a future iteration, should these softer measures prove ineffective.