We voted Against: Our current opinion is that this generally speaking has a good amount of overlap and we think this isn’t the best time to start this up. The ADPC has done a large part of the work here and we want some more clarity.
We voted For: These updates make sense and the ability to allow EOAs to execute smart contract code directly from their addresses and enabling of delegation, transaction batching, sponsorship, and privilege de-escalation are most interesting for us.
We voted #1 Deploy Both Strategies, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy, #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy, #4 Deploy Nothing, Abstain: Overall, each of these strategies has its owns pros and cons but we are in favor of trialing both and then deciding in the future which to scale up/down. Some more comments can be found here: TMC’s Proposed Allocations - #32 by PGov
We voted For: We are continuously in support of these two and believe both will allow for more fee revenue collection into the DAO treasury in the future.
We voted For: As prior, we are in favor of the bootcamp and respective budgets. The team is well tasked to do so and we are voting in line with prior vote.
We voted For: After careful consideration and seeing some of the edits and changes made, we are in favor of the newly adapted Arbitrum Audit program and think that there are quite a few changes that let the overlap be distinct enough to warrant this being productive!
We voted For: These preferred and proposed allocations make sense and generally speaking fall in line with what we expect. We think above all, the ability to alter and adjust these positions over time will be the most important thing.
We voted Certora: With our smaller vote size, we voted for Certora as we’ve worked with them on many occasions and can speak highly of their quality of work.
We voted For: As we highlighted in the forums, we like how this proposal is focused on the tangible outcomes of CaC and Customer Lifetime Value. This should be a data driven approach to allocate effective and we are in favor.
We voted Yes, Deploy Stablecoin/ARB Strategy: Voting in line with our prior total snapshot. We think the individual strategies and descriptions are as expected and should be enacted.
We voted Chris Cameron, Federico Daffina, Frisson, Jana Bertram: We have worked with these individuals before in the past and believe they are well fit to serve on this committee.
We voted Yes to Both: We are in favor of topping-up the HCP and leftover funds to the TMC as both are reasonable and aligned with the original vote budgets.
We voted For: Similar to our prior reasoning for the Snapshot, having this high level misuse bounty program is logical and should ensure more accountability within the DAO. We rae favor of the most recent edits and believe this will be very important for the DAO going forward
We vote For: Mostly in support here. It’s refreshing to see this after a long pause and we believe the team and foundation synergies behind such is well needed for this to succeed.
We voted For: Echoing our snapshot comments in that these updates make sense and the ability to allow EOAs to execute smart contract code directly from their addresses and enabling of delegation, transaction batching, sponsorship, and privilege de-escalation.
We voted Abstain: We’re abstaining as we have members that are currently on the MSS. That aside, moving future control off to the foundation makes sense, but the budget is also expiring soon anyways and there won’t be a budget rebalance happening.
We voted Do Nothing: We don’t think this delegation and change of protocol goal will stray too far from what the DAO voted in and believe the delegation still makes sense.
We vote For: In line with our support prior. As mentioned, it’s refreshing to see this after a long pause and we believe the team and foundation synergies behind such is well needed for this to succeed.
We voted For: We think the budget ask and scope are very reasonable. This is a good experiment to take a look and try something new. If it works well, maybe it makes sense for this to be universal.
We voted For: Consolidating here is logical and we think makes sense in the short to medium term. Long term, there may be issues with general consolidation and concentration of power.
We voted Gustavo Grieco: After reviewing the two candidates, we ended up choosing Gustavo. We think both were quite qualified but that Gustavo was the most qualified.
We voted Abstain: While we think the future elections and cadence are reasonable, we are unsure about the continuation of the gaming venture and current setup.
We voted For: We are supportive of the proposed extension as we recognize the important role this initiative plays in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The past months have demonstrated the value of having a dedicated group focused on research and technical development, and we believe that continuity is essential to maintain momentum. We echo the broader community sentiment calling for clearer accountability and impact assessment. It is essential that we not only fund valuable work but also ensure transparent reporting on the tangible outcomes achieved.
We voted For: While certainly a very large funding request, we are confident in Entropy’s ability to deliver in the coming years and are in support of this budget and mandate renewal and updates.
We voted For: In favor of the technical upgrade, and believe that these new executors should allow for more agile changes and control parameters in the future.