Here’s an update on what we’ve been up to for the second quarter of 2025.
[Tally] Security Council Election - Voted
In our rationale, we explained that we abstained from voting in the nomination phase of the March 2025 Security Council elections, as our preferred candidates had already qualified. In the election phase, we split our votes among Bartek, Yoav.eth, and Fred, based on their strong technical backgrounds, reputations, and familiarity with Arbitrum.
[Snapshot] Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the top-up and the transfer of remaining Questbook S1 funds to the TMC, viewing it as a simple and effective solution to the HCP shortfall.
[Snapshot] Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of this proposal, supporting the committee’s selected providers. While we appreciated the STEP II members’ work, we noted that more transparency around the evaluation process would benefit the DAO.
[Snapshot + Tally] DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal, despite some outstanding concerns. We supported moving it forward while seeking further clarity on how success will be measured and how the DAO can engage in oversight if the program underperforms. Also, we decided to extend our support during the on-chain phase
[Tally] The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program - Voted FOR
We supported the proposal, recognizing its intent and pilot nature. While we remained cautious about its effectiveness and potential downsides, we felt it was worth supporting in the absence of broader DAO accountability mechanisms.
[Tally] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal after verifying the executable payload and confirming that it aligns with the described changes. Our research team validated the EIPs and WASM root, and with the prior audit issue resolved, we saw no reason to oppose it.
[Snapshot + Tally] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal during the temp-check and its subsequent on-chain vote, supporting a quorum reduction as a short-term solution. While long-term solutions should focus on boosting token holder participation, this step is reasonable for now. Also
[Snapshot] Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation - Voted FOR
We supported the proposal, which involved the wind-down of the MSS and the temporary transfer of its responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation. We viewed this as an interim solution until the OpCo is ready to operate.
[Snapshot] Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot - Voted FOR reduce delegation to 100k
We voted in favor of the proposal, which we also submitted, and supported reducing the delegation to 100,000 ARB. This amount is sufficient for Event Horizon participants to meaningfully engage in governance without posing capture risks. This setup allows the focus to remain on evaluating Event Horizon as a model for agentic governance.
[Snapshot] Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget - Voted FOR
We supported this proposal, as it sensibly keeps the originally allocated STEP funds in place. Since the USDC conversion was due to Mountain Protocol winding down—not a strategic decision—it made sense to redeploy the funds with STEP 2 to continue generating yield for the DAO.
[Snapshot] Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability - Voted FOR
We voted in favor of the proposal, supporting adjustments to the OpCo’s mandate. While some delegates raised concerns about deviating from the original scope, we saw value in allowing flexibility to maximize OpCo’s success. We emphasized the need for regular, transparent reporting to keep the DAO informed and responsive.
[Snapshot] Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations - Voted AGAINST
We decided not to support this proposal, while expressing appreciation for the valuable contributions of the team behind Proposals.app and their ongoing support for the Arbitrum ecosystem. Although we recognize the app’s potential to improve delegate experience, we see it more as a quality-of-life enhancement rather than essential infrastructure.
[Tally] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router - Voted FOR.
We voted for the proposal, as we did with the temporary check stage. We reiterated the need for a mechanism to handle such upgrades without requiring full DAO votes each time. To reduce overhead, we suggested exploring a model where the OpCo could assume this responsibility in the long term, with the Foundation and Offchain Labs potentially managing it in the interim.
[Snapshot] Audit Committee Technical Expert Elections - Voted 100% for Gustavo Grieco
We voted for Gustavo Grieco with 100% of our voting power, recognizing both candidates’ strong qualifications. We ultimately chose Gustavo for his deep expertise in protocol-level security and extensive experience in vulnerability triage across blockchain ecosystems.
[Snapshot] Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence
We supported the proposal to extend the AGV Council’s term and align future elections with the calendar year. This change brings clarity and consistency, improving alignment with AGV’s operational cycles and strategic planning.
Discussions
[Discussion] Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order
We appreciated the intent behind the proposal and shared our broader interest in supporting Arbitrum-native and web3 tools, such as Huddle. However, formal governance approval was premature at this stage. Instead, we suggested continuing to experiment with Huddle informally, encouraging adoption based on user experience rather than mandating its use. As part of this approach, we began using Huddle for recent calls and are open to continued use if no major issues arise. We see this as a constructive way to support Arbitrum builders without requiring a formal vote.
[Discussion] A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum
We shared our perspective on the Arbitrum Foundation’s proposed vision for the DAO without explicitly supporting or opposing it. We acknowledged the value of Arbitrum Aligned Entities (AAEs) in leading strategic execution, but called for clearer definitions and expectations regarding their role. We emphasized the importance of preserving space for external contributors, ensuring transparency in decision-making, and establishing strong accountability standards. Finally, we recommended testing the vision in practice before formal ratification through a DAO vote.
[Discussion] Service Provider Utilisation Framework
We shared a comment appreciating the ADPC’s work on the proposal and acknowledged the thoughtful stakeholder engagement behind it. Given the framework’s reliance on the yet-to-be-operational OpCo, we felt it was premature to proceed. We suggested revisiting and updating the proposal once the OpCo is fully established and potentially incorporating other Arbitrum Aligned Entities under the new vision.
[Discussion] Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
We supported the proposed solution as a practical way to ensure the approved initiative could proceed without disruption. While we understood concerns about setting a precedent, we felt prolonged debate would be more harmful. The need for a top-up highlighted current operational inefficiencies, which we hope the OpCo will help resolve going forward.
[Discussion] DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
We did not support the proposal at this stage, though we were open to its overall direction. While we acknowledged the value of improving incentive programs, we requested more transparent accountability, better-defined processes, and more information on continuity, roles, and success metrics.
[Discussion] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
We shared a comment supporting the proposed 0.5% quorum reduction as a pragmatic and low-risk interim solution. While a high quorum requirement is a valuable governance feature, we acknowledged that it shouldn’t block well-supported initiatives. We noted that alternatives, like treasury delegation, carry more complexity without solving the core issue. Ultimately, we emphasized the importance of increasing active participation over time, while accepting quorum reduction as a practical step for now.
[Discussion] Overview of overlapping ideas in SOS submissions
We shared a comment expressing appreciation for the effort behind the SOS process but raised concerns about how it unfolded in practice. While we welcomed the initiative’s intent to align the DAO around strategic goals, we felt the submissions lacked clarity and did not yet justify confident support. Given the limited alignment with AAEs and uncertainty about how the proposals would materialize, we suggested that moving to a vote now felt premature. If forced to vote, we would likely abstain or distribute votes equally across submissions.
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.