We’re supporting this proposal because the updated version presents a more reasonable cost structure, making the value it offers clearer and better aligned with the scope of work. The proposed features may not be essential, but they can improve accessibility, transparency, and engagement for delegates and tokenholders using the forum. While we still have some concerns about the voting power tags, we appreciate @paulofonseca openness to feedback and his willingness to consider alternative ways of providing context. With a clearer plan and more thoughtful pricing, this revised proposal feels like a worthwhile and low-risk step toward enhancing Arbitrum’s governance tooling.