# Lampros DAO Delegate Communication Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Statements\ **Tags:** delegation, delegate-statements\ **Created:** [September 5, 2024, 6:25am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642 "2024-09-05T06:25:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 24
**Author:** ![Euphoria](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/euphoria/32/14303_2.png) [@Euphoria](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Euphoria)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 4:25am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642/24 "2025-03-26T04:25:24Z")
# Snapshot Votes * * * 1. **[GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xf9fd09839ad10b0bb16c97a1cc4618270ed4145a38561da35ac4afe84516a107)** **Voted - FOR, Deploy Capital** **Reason -** > [@GMC's Preferred Choices for 7,500 ETH RFP](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gmcs-preferred-choices-for-7-500-eth-rfp/28524/65): > > The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain\_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation. > > We are voting FOR, Deploy Capital in this proposal on Snapshot voting. > > We haven’t looked into all the applications yet, but we would have appreciated identifying 5-6 different protocols, including a mix of native protocols, to bootstrap liquidity on those protocols and signal to other participants about the use of those native protocols on Arbitrum. > > For now, keeping this stack idle makes less sense, and as the committee mentions, this is the first round of many to come. We believe more native protocols will be encouraged in future rounds. * * * 1. **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdb22a77942eddfea9c826790ac03c3e54a34716c0a9bde846399cffe6046d256)** **Voted - FOR** **Reason -** > [@\[CONSTITUTIONAL\] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/55): > > The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain\_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation. > > We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting. > > As mentioned in our [previous comment](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-proposal-for-arbitrum-dao-to-register-the-sky-custom-gateway-contracts-in-the-router/28617/29), we’re supporting this proposal as it improves the current bridging experience without introducing new risks or costs to the DAO. > > We also believe this kind of update doesn’t always need to go through a full proposal process. A more efficient path could be explored in the DAO allowing Offchain Labs or the Foundation to handle similar requests for which they are capable for a fixed term, with clear reporting. This would reduce the governance load for the delegates while maintaining transparency. > > That said, we support this proposal and believe it’s a practical, win-win step for both Arbitrum and the Sky team. * * * # Tally Votes * * * 1. **[[CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/14881197137069494959448952699217598923721993392617887469969318742509097999570?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9)** **Voted - FOR** **Reason -** > [@AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/77): > > The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain\_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation. > > We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting. > > As mentioned in our [Snapshot rationale](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/20), this is a clear and straightforward proposal that supports both the Nova Fee Sweep and the Timeboost AIP, making execution more efficient. > > > [@AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/68): > > > > Hey everyone, quick update - the **auction contracts** for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost. > > The update from the @Arbitrum team about the early deployment of auction contracts on both Arbitrum One and Nova shows good foresight and readiness for the smooth implementation once the vote passes. > > We’re also eager to see how builders engage with Timeboost and the kind of revenue it can bring to the DAO over time. * * * 1. **[[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/41764616447638715300612914863093416410063619332654034338488569044333128121381?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4)** **Voted - FOR** **Reason -** > [@\[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/150): > > The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain\_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation. > > First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown. > > We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting. > > That said, we agree with some points already raised by other delegates. While the proposal’s intention is great, we think there is still room for improvement, especially around the budget and structure. > > For example, the revised budget is still quite high. We feel the team could explore alternative models - for instance, instead of the DAO paying the fellows directly, maybe interested protocols who want governance support could offer stipends themselves. This might better align incentives and also reduce direct costs for the DAO. > > On concerns raised by others about whether fellows might leave for other ecosystems after the program, our view is that every investment carries some risk. Some fellows may stay, and some may leave but that’s true for any open ecosystem. The key is to design a strong selection process, which the proposal already includes, and trust it will bring in people with a long-term interest in Arbitrum. > > There are also smaller orgs and contributors who want to participate in governance and be part of the DAO but lack the time, knowledge, or expertise. These fellows can help fill that gap. And if they perform well, they may even get retained by teams or protocols later on, which would be a great outcome. > > Looking at the curriculum, it seems like an all-round introduction to Arbitrum governance. If the program continues, we’d love to see modules added on OCL, OpCo, MVP, and the upcoming SOS as these are important areas for governance contributors to understand to contribute in the future. > > We know our single vote may not change the outcome of this proposal looking at the current status, but we’re voting in favor because we support efforts that bring new talent into the Arbitrum DAO which is needed currently to increase governance participation and build long-term contributor pipelines. > > We didn’t get a chance to be involved earlier in this initiative, but if the team plans to iterate on this in the future, we would be happy to participate and contribute in any way we can. * * * 1. **[[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/107606727309922720763027677505427395647796047780305505879344344641224024948240?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4)** **Voted - FOR** **Reason -** > [@Arbitrum Audit Program](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/104): > > The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain\_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation. > > We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting. > > As mentioned in our [Snapshot rationale](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/63), we support programs that lower barriers for early-stage teams to build confidently on Arbitrum. Audit costs often block promising projects from launching safely, and this initiative directly addresses that issue. > > Since the Snapshot vote, we’ve seen meaningful improvements in the proposal. One concern we had earlier was around eligibility criteria - specifically, how the committee would define which projects can apply. That’s now clearly addressed in the updated version, which helps set expectations and filters out applications that don’t meet the intended purpose of the program. > > We also appreciate the added clarity around transparency reporting. Having quarterly updates is good to keep the DAO informed. > > Overall, the proposal has shaped up well, and we’re aligned with the direction it’s taking. * * * --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642)._