# Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals
Voted FOR
Loved this proposal, this is an important step in aligning the DAO around clear goals and objectives that will inform my future votes. The objectives are clearly stated and measurable as well so big big YES from me!
# Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
Voted FOR
Excellent news for a lot of unused ETH sitting on the L1. Very excited for the implications on improving the MEV experience on Arbitrum.
### [Constitutional AIP] Activate Arbitrum BoLD + Infura Nova Validator Whitelist
Voted FOR
Permissionless validation is a massive step for the DAO on its road to decentralization. BoLD is the sort of innovation that will bring us to stage 2, so I’m very excited for it!
### OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Voted AGAINST
The Arbitrum DAO decided to do things the complicated way. To let the DAO figure things out on many things. To have a minimal foundation, focused on support rather than leadership. It’s time for the Foundation to step up and take some of the responsibilities outlined here. Adding another centralized support entity will inevitably become a bottleneck, no matter how well run it is. It’s a step in the wrong direction, even though it would secure our current situation.
### Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
Voted FOR
Very excited to see the Arbitrum DAO start to use some of its treasury to diversify. The expansion into RWA makes sense as well. I would like in the future to see the DAO borrow against its ARB at a reasonable rate rather than sell ARB on the market.
### Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
Voted AGAINST
I believe that the DAO is in a key moment, where a fresh start is necessary. Had the D.A.O. program been a full success, I’d have voted yes. There has been a couple of key issues that have been raised by other delegates that make me think that perhaps this program represents the old “spray and pray” tactic of the Arbitrum DAO in terms of funding. I’d like us to move to something more focused, and I hope that we’ll see these changes during these next few weeks. In short, I don’t have much against the D.A.O. and believe that it’s been run competently. It simply doesn’t represent what I believe to be the way forward for the DAO.
### Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Voted FOR
I believe on the other hand that the Stylus sprint is the kind of focused initiative this DAO needs more of. The fact that the quality of applicants has been such that the few that haven’t gotten funding are legitimate teams with a great track record is excellent. Kudos to @Entropy for their work on this, and I’m looking forward to seeing the results of this initiative.
# Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Voted FOR
See my earlier stated rationale for the onchain vote - excellent program that has shown real promise and attracted the kind of seasoned teams that I want to see building on Arbitrum. The ROI on teams onboarding to Stylus seems excellent imo.
# [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
Voted FOR
Important update to ArbOS - not much to say here as it seems like a straight upgrade. I reiterate a previous comment that I believe that protocol upgrades of the sort that get such significant support and always end up extremely one-sided should be optimistic governance. Give delegates a veto and reduce governance fatigue - seems like a better setup imo.
Voted AGAINST
This vote is almost in protest rather than truly against the spirit of the proposal. I’ve been clear, especially during the discussion around OpCo that the Foundation should take a much stronger role in this DAO. This audit program should be tablestakes. There’s something wrong with the functionning of the Foundation if they have to wait two years since the beginning of the DAO to request funds for audits for ecosystem projects. How was this not in place already? It’s one of the easiest and most common things Foundations should be in charge of. I hope we get another proposal coming from the Foundation that clarifies its mandate and R&R. This proposal is a step in the right direction, but we need more than a step.
Voted #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy
I voted based on the recommendation of the TMC. If they feel we’re not ready to deploy ARB, we paid them to figure that out and I’m happy to follow what they think is best.
Voted FOR, deploy capital
I believe that the ETH the treasury has received needs to be put to good use, it’s useless to leave money on the table here and it also activates Arbitrum’s economy a bit. Yes, I’m disappointed that most of the protocols chosen were not Arbitrum native but I totally get that security of capital is the name of the game here.
Voted FOR
This is a no-brainer, the Sky gateway needs to be well supported on Arbitrum so I’m happy that this proposal went through without any issues. It’s clear to me that these sort of decisions shouldn’t require all delegates to vote though, it feels unnecessary.
Voted FOR
I’m very excited about Timeboost, I think it’ll be one of the unique value props of Arbitrum and it introduces a fairer transaction ordering mechanism that will also make the DAO more profitable. I’m all for it. The second part of the proposal is more of a cleaning things up type thing from a previous Nova proposal, so not much to add here.
Voted AGAINST
I just don’t think this is necessary at the stage we’re at. If anything, more builders and less governance professionals is what this DAO needs. The program itself is fine, and the budget makes sense - I just don’t think it solves a real problem that the DAO has right now.
Voted FOR
I voted against this in the snapshot phase, because I believe that the Foundation is a massive treasury liability to the DAO. This being said, an audit program is a worthwhile spend, the damage that hacks do to the chains they’re on is dangerous and with vibe coders going around - we certainly need all the insurance we can get.