Here’s an update on what we’ve been up to for the first quarter of 2025.
[Snapshot + Tally] OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution - Voted FOR
Internally, we discussed and assessed the proposal based on our understanding and vision of the OpCo. We believe its implementation has the potential to support current Arbitrum initiatives to improve its operations. After discussing the proposal extensively, we decided to vote in its favor, both in the temp-check and subsequent on-chain vote.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals - Voted FOR
After supporting the MVP, this proposal is a logical next step in narrowing down a set of priorities that the DAO can focus on executing. For this reason, we decided to support it.
[Snapshot] Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead - Voted AGAINST
We decided to vote against because the proposal doesn’t adequately address the DAO’s needs. The Hub’s core idea is to cover relevant content in a digestible format, which can be valuable, but the proposal’s focus is mainly on the website’s development rather than the content itself.
[Snapshot] Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action - Voted FOR
Having previously voted in favor of the Nova fee router proposal, it makes sense to retroactively perform a sweep and transfer the fees already accrued by Nova before the router implementation to the DAO’s treasury. So we decided to support this initiative.
[Tally] Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0 - Voted FOR
Having supported the proposal during the temp-check, we also voted in its favor during the onchain vote.
[Tally] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3 - Voted FOR
During the Temp-check version of this proposal, we raised 5 points we would like to see addressed before we’re comfortable voting in favor of the proposal on-chain. Jojo handled these concerns, giving us enough confidence to support this initiative during this on-chain vote.
[Snapshot + Tally] Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the temp-check of this proposal because we supported the original proposal to fund the Stylus Sprint and believe that we shouldn’t let budget constraints limit the number of projects we can fund, simply because we received more applications than anticipated. The proposal didn’t have changes since the temp-check, so we decided also to support it in the subsequent on-chain vote.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal - Voted AGAINST
We decided to vote against this proposal because, from our perspective, the timing was premature. Additionally, the justification for the requested budget and the KPIs feels lacking.
[Snapshot] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto - Voted FOR
Our research team reviewed all technical implementations related to this proposal and found nothing concerning. So we decided to support it. L2BEAT’s research team has checked this proposal to verify that all technical features will not cause any problems
[Snapshot + Tally] Arbitrum Audit Program - Voted FOR
In our view, this is an expected pathway for many different initiatives the DAO undertakes; a third-party contributor proposes something and leads the charge, and once the concept is proven, the AF (or in the future, the OpCo) internalizes it and optimizes it to be as efficient as possible, creating value within the DAO structures. So we voted in favor during the temp-check and its subsequent on-chain voting.
[Snapshot] TMC’s Proposed Allocations
After careful consideration, we’ve decided to cast our vote in the following way:
- Deploy Nothing
- Only Deploy Stable Strategy
- Deploy Both Strategies
- Only Deploy ARB Strategy
- Abstain
For our full rationale, please see our original comment.
[Tally] Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep - Voted FOR
We have already supported the retroactive Nova fee sweep and Timeboost in both their respective temp-checks and the temp-check that combined them.
After reviewing the calldata, we confirm that the on-chain action solely pertains to transferring Nova’s ETH fees into the DAO’s treasury. The Timeboost policy occurs at the sequencer level and isn’t within the DAO’s direct control, so we find no issue with its absence from the on-chain execution. So, we decided to support this proposal in this on-chain vote.
[Tally] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp - Voted AGAINST
We decided to vote against this proposal. While we generally support bringing new contributors into the DAO, the unresolved priorities make this proposal premature.
Without a clear vision and specific roles, newcomers may not be able to add value straightforwardly. We recommend first addressing the DAO’s organizational gaps, ensuring that when fresh contributors arrive, they can integrate effectively from the outset. Once a more cohesive structure is established, we’d welcome revisiting and supporting an onboarding plan of this kind.
[Snapshot] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router - Voted FOR
Adding Sky Custom Gateway contracts so Arbitrum’s bridge can support USDS and sUSD appears both straightforward and low-risk—particularly since ChainSecurity and Cantina audits found no significant issues. So, we voted in favor of this proposal.
[Snapshot] GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH) - Voted FOR
We find the recommended allocations sensible in balancing yield and risk, and we don’t view the absence of Arbitrum-native allocations as grounds to oppose it. So we have decided to support this proposal.
[Snapshot] OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
After careful consideration, we’ve decided to cast our vote to the following candidates:
- A.J. Warner
- Patrick McCorry
- Frisson
For our full rationale, please see our original comment.
[Snapshot] TMC Stablecoin Recommendation - Voted FOR
We find that no significant risks remain after revisiting the TMC’s recommendations and considering feedback from Avantgarde and Karpatkey. So, we decided to support it.
[Snapshot] TMC ARB Recommendation - Voted AGAINST
While we appreciate the TMC’s work, the strategy still needs more precise justification—especially regarding balancing yield and risk via Arbitrum-native protocols. We encourage more refinement and stakeholder input, and we’ll reconsider once a more robust approach is presented. But for now, we have decided to vote against it.
[Snapshot] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols - Voted ABSTAIN
This proposal evolved from our earlier “incentive detox” ideas, which we discussed at length with Kamil. We decided to abstain because, although combining on-chain and off-chain incentives could reinforce Arbitrum’s network effects, we would like to see more explicit metrics for user lifetime value (LTV), ROI, and more transparent committee responsibilities. Also, we believe this initiative would benefit from being overseen by the Arbitrum Foundation or OpCo, although we appreciate its experimental spirit and look forward to a refined version.
Discussions
Grant Request: CyberCash - Driving Crypto Adoption on Arbitrum
After checking the proposal, we shared our insights and raised some points that we believed were important before the temp-check started.
Proposal: Not missing the AI train
We created a comment that shared our thoughts about the proposal. The proposal doesn’t show any plan or KPIs for generating an executable action, so from our perspective, it was more of an idea than a fully developed plan.
Arbitrum Audit Program
We shared our expectations about the program and how the Foundation should manage it. The Foundation will run this subsidy fund on behalf of the DAO using the DAO’s funds. As such, we’ll hold them to the same standard as any and all other contributors and service providers, and we expect them to be an example of what a DAO-funded program should look like.
MSS for Arbitrum - Communication Thread
After Tamara’s comment about the need for improvement in the MSS structure, we shared a comment. In general, we know there is room for improvement in the MSS. We are looking forward to adjustments to the operational procedures on the MSS side, and we expect more communication in this MSS communication thread going forward.
L2BEAT Arbitrum Office Hours
Lastly, we want to remind everyone that to further our communication with our constituents and any interested party in the community, we’re hosting recurring Office Hours on Google Meets.
The office hours are held every Thursday at 3 pm UTC/ 11 am EST
During Office Hours, you will be able to reach L2BEAT’s governance team, which consists of Kaereste (Krzysztof Urbanski), Sinkas (Anastassis Oikonomopoulos), and Manugotsuka (Manuel González), and discuss our activity as delegates.
The purpose of the office hours is to gather feedback from the people who have delegated to us, answer any questions in regard to our voting activities and rationale, and collect input on things you’d like us to engage in discussions about.
You can add the L2BEAT Governance Calendar in your Google Calendar to find the respective Google Meets links for every call and to easily keep track of the Office Hours, as well as other important calls and events relevant to Arbitrum that L2BEAT governance team will be attending or hosting.