I’ve spent the last few days going through all three candidate posts carefully….
I’m not a developer. My background is accounting and finance. I started following Arbitrum governance recently partly because I noticed almost no one from India is involved in this space, and partly because the questions being asked here matter way beyond just crypto.
Here’s what I couldn’t find clear answers to across all three candidates.
On conflict of interest:
Ackee audits protocols built on Arbitrum and gets paid for it. Aragon holds Morpho tokens. Tino works for Scroll DAO simultaneously.
None of them have clearly stated: “If a situation arises where my financial interests conflict with my Security Council duties, here is exactly what I will do.”
This isn’t a technical question. It’s a basic accountability question. And it’s missing from every single post.
On Arbitrum’s future I didn’t see a vision:
All three candidates listed what they’ve done. None of them clearly answered what they actually want to change or improve in Arbitrum.
A Security Council member isn’t just a firefighter. They’re someone the community is trusting with emergency power over a living, evolving network. Knowing their technical credentials is one thing knowing how they think about Arbitrum’s future is another.
Do they think the sequencer should be decentralized faster? Do they have concerns about the current BOLD implementation? Do they think governance participation needs structural reform?
Silence on these questions isn’t neutrality. It’s a gap.
On conflict handling exact steps:
When a conflict of interest actually happens not hypothetically, but when it does what is the exact process?
Do you recuse yourself and inform the community? Do you abstain silently? Does someone replace you temporarily? Who decides?
“I will handle it professionally” is not a policy. A policy has steps. I’d like to see the steps.
On bandwidth:
Aragon is already on three other security councils. Tino is active across multiple ecosystems.
Experience matters. But emergencies don’t schedule themselves. What happens when two protocols need simultaneous attention?
On voter turnout:
56 views on Josef’s post. Aragon’s post has been up for days with minimal engagement. SEEDGov posted 13 hours ago.
We’re electing people who control emergency multisig power over billions and the community engagement looks like a mid-level forum thread. That’s the part that genuinely concerns me.
On technical jargon:
Every post assumes you already know what ArbOS is, what BOLD does, what a multisig means in practice.
If the goal is decentralized governance, shouldn’t candidates be explaining what they’re signing up to protect not just listing credentials?
I don’t have answers. I’m asking questions.
If any candidate wants to address these directly, I think the community would benefit from it. MconnectDAO Freelance Researcher | Based in India | Still learning — but paying attention.