Here’s an update on what we’ve been up until today.
[Snapshot] Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures - Voted FOR
After reviewing the proposal with the assistance of L2BEAT’s research team, we’re supportive of it. The only real novelty is the new executeCall() function, which allows the DAO to interact directly with a target contract instead of first delegating to a throw-away “action” contract.
[Snapshot] Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension - Voted AGAINST
We voted against. While we value ARDC’s contributions and recognize the proposal’s minimal scope, we believe maintaining a separate research mandate alongside the upcoming OpCo isn’t justified. Once OpCo is live, it can engage ARDC contributors as needed, preserving expertise without duplicating structures.
[Snapshot + Tally] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway - Voted FOR.
This proposal follows the same logic as the Sky and $RARI registrations, which we also backed. We’d like to see a smoother process for handling these cases in the future without full votes each time. Given that, we decided to support it during the temp-check and its onchain stage as well.
[Snapshot + Tally] Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Year 2 and Year 3 - Voted ABSTAIN
We initially supported Entropy’s renewal during the temp check, recognizing their value to the DAO and the potential role of OpCo and OAT in guiding their next phase. However, at the onchain stage, it became clear that delegates would not have meaningful input into oversight or KPI discussions. While we still see merit in the initiative, we’re not fully aligned with the current setup. **For those reasons, we decided to ABSTAIN.
[Snapshot] Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures - Voted FOR
We backed the initial trial and welcome this updated version. It broadens coverage (to all paid contributors), adds procedures for member replacement and program winding down, and removes an unenforceable self-voting limit. These changes address gaps and enhance flexibility. For those reasons, we voted FOR.
[Snapshot] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge - Voted ABSTAIN
We explained our reasoning in our previous comment, and after considering all points, we decided to ABSTAIN.
[Snapshot] Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance - Voted FOR
In our previous comment, we expressed our support for the consolidation of the USDC under ATMC, but we were sceptical of the dissolution of the DAO Events budget. With the proposal having been amended to remove the dissolution, we’re voting in favor.
[Snapshot] Updates to the DIP, The Complete 1.7 Version - Voted FOR
We’re critical of this proposal’s framing but see value in freeing SEEDGov to focus on improving the next DIP version. For that reason, we supported it.
[Tally] Remove Cost Cap, Update Executors, Disable Legacy USDT Bridge - Voted FOR
During the temp-check stage, we supported the Removal of the Cost Cap on Nova and the Update of the Upgrade Executors, and we continue to support these changes for the onchain vote. On the other hand, we abstained on the Disable Legacy Tether Bridge proposal because we were not comfortable endorsing the USDT0 setup and the liveness and safety trust assumptions associated with it. In this onchain stage, due to the fact that we couldn’t slit our votes individually, we decided to support the whole pack together.
[Snapshot] AIP: ArbOS Version 50 Dia - Voted FOR
Our research team reviewed the proposed upgrade and found no major issues. We noted a different hash in the pre-release, but since it’s not the final onchain executable, it’s not a blocker. We’ll recheck the calldata at the onchain stage to confirm alignment. For these reasons, we decided to support the proposal.
[Snapshot] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements - Voted None
We didn’t believe this proposal was ready for approval and recommend revisiting its design. While we see merit in some points, like longer cohorts and key rotation, they depend on fixing deeper issues in the election process and transparency. Other proposed changes, such as lowering thresholds or constitutional edits, need further discussion. For these reasons, we decided not to cast our vote
[Snapshot] Revert the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) to Version 1.5 - Voted to keep the current version 1.7.
We continue to see structural issues in the DIP program that need addressing, but reverting to v1.5 would not solve them. Version 1.7 simplifies administration, reduces costs, and broadens participation, offering a more stable interim setup. The focus should now shift to designing a better long-term program. For these reasons, we decided to support keeping version 1.7.
[Snapshot] Transfer 8,500 ETH from the Treasury to ATMC’s ETH Treasury Strategies - Voted AGAINST
While we support using treasury assets to generate yield and strengthen the ecosystem, this proposal doesn’t provide enough clarity or transparency on strategy or execution. Given the lack of communication and unanswered questions, we decided to vote against it for now, with the hope of supporting future iterations once these gaps are resolved.
[Snapshot] AIP: DVP Quorum - Voted AGAINST
While we support improving quorum, we don’t believe this approach is the right one. It introduces costly upgrades without fixing participation issues. We voted AGAINST, all of our reasons and alternatives are in our original comment.
[Snapshot] AGV Council Compensation Calibration: Benchmark for Future Council Terms - Voted FOR
Fair pay is essential for roles carrying significant responsibility within the DAO and helps attract strong candidates. That said, we continue to encourage better communication and transparency from the AGV, especially now that it is fully operational and accountable for delivering tangible results. So we decided to support this initiative.
[Snapshot] The DAO Incentive Program (DIP 2.0) - Voted AGAINST
While we recognize the effort behind it, we believe it fails to define what valuable contributions the DAO wants to incentivize and relies on overly complex structures that don’t reflect the DAO’s current activity level. Without clear goals or accountability, we cannot support it in its current form.
You can read our full rationale here.
[Snapshot] Should we try a Delegate Incentive Program like the Arbitrum Triple Dip? - Voted AGAINST
We appreciate the effort and thought that went into its design, especially the split between voting and contribution rewards and the peer-review model that encourages collaboration. However, the proposal still doesn’t answer the key question of what kinds of contributions the DAO wants to promote, and it lacks a broader consensus within the community. Until those issues are addressed, we cannot support it.
You can read our full rationale here.
[Tally] Transfer 8,500 ETH from the Treasury to ATMC’s ETH Treasury Strategies - Voted FOR
We decided to vote in favor of the Entropy’s Investment Policy Statement (IPS) and the associated transfer of DAO funds. The IPS strengthens treasury management with clear reporting, performance standards, and accountability (addressing prior visibility concerns). We also recommend adopting the IPS as a baseline requirement for all future DAO-managed fund initiatives to ensure consistency and comparability.
[Tally] Security Council Elections (Cohort 1) - Voted FOR 6 candidates.
As with previous elections, we selected our SC candidates based on three high-level criteria:
- Proven technical expertise in blockchain and security engineering
- Strong reputation and integrity within the ecosystem
- Geographic and organizational diversity to ensure robust representation
After reviewing all candidate applications, attending the community discussions, and consulting with our research team, we decided to cast our votes for the following nominees:
- Cyfrin: A highly reputable security firm that has consistently delivered high-quality audits across the Ethereum ecosystem and holds deep expertise in Arbitrum’s codebase. Their institutional reliability and technical excellence make them an asset to the Council.
- ZachXBT: A respected independent investigator with a strong record in uncovering on-chain exploits and promoting transparency in the space. His presence adds a critical layer of vigilance and accountability.
- Emiliano: A recognized DeFi developer and security researcher with extensive experience in smart contract systems and risk analysis. His pragmatic understanding of protocol operations strengthens the Council’s technical depth.
- Pablo: A technically skilled contributor with hands-on experience in blockchain infrastructure and security operations, bringing valuable operational insight into protocol-level decision-making.
- Consensys Diligence: One of the most experienced security teams in the Ethereum ecosystem, with a proven track record in auditing complex systems. Their institutional knowledge provides stability and rigor to the Council.
- Griff Green: A long-time community leader and advocate for decentralized governance. His experience in DAO operations and commitment to transparency make him a valuable complement to a technically oriented group.
Disclaimer
We recognize that the Security Council is composed of six members and that competition was strong among many capable candidates. We decided to support the individuals and organizations we believe best combine technical excellence, independence, and a strong sense of responsibility toward the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We appreciate the commitment of every candidate who participated and look forward to seeing the new Security Council continue to strengthen the network’s security and governance maturity.
Discussions
AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge
We shared our analysis of the USDT upgrade proposal, outlining the implications of disabling the legacy bridge and the trust assumptions behind LayerZero’s USDT0. Our goal is to help delegates better assess the technical and governance trade-offs
Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance
We posted our view on the Events Budget proposal: while we support using idle USDC to generate yield, we don’t believe the Events Budget should be dissolved. The issue lies in its administration, not its purpose.
AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements
We welcome the proposal to refine the Security Council elections, but it doesn’t go far enough. Key topics like candidate criteria, funding, and the Council’s broader role deserve open discussion before any constitutional change. We made a deep analysis in our original comment.