RAD Budget - Quarterly Review (2Q2026)

As part of the quarterly review of the Rewarding Active Delegates (RAD) program, we’re revising the per-proposal incentive budgets effective from the upcoming quarter (July 2026-September 2026).

Since the program launched, the price of ARB has fallen substantially. As the RAD budgets are denominated in USD but paid out in ARB, the same USD budgets are costing the DAO significantly more ARB than at the outset. The changes below realign the program’s ARB spend with its historical average.

The new per-proposal budgets are:

Proposal category Current budget New budget Change Current Payout Cap New Payout Cap Change
On-chain constitutional quorum $15,000 $10,000 −33.3% $700 $550 -21.4%
On-chain non-constitutional quorum $7,000 $5,000 −28.6% $500 $400 -20%
Off-chain decision-making (non-constitutional) $7,000 $5,000 −28.6% $500 $400 -20%
Off-chain election $7,000 $5,000 −28.6% $500 $400 -20%
Off-chain temperature check (non-binding) $5,000 $3,000 −40.0% $300 $250 -16.7%

These budgets will not apply retroactively, and will only apply to proposals that start in July. For the avoidance of doubt, proposals that started in June but ended in July will still use the old budgets.

Why we’re making this change

RAD budgets are set in USD but distributed in ARB. When the program began, ARB traded around $0.21. Today it sits near $0.077 after a decline of roughly 65%. Because the USD budget per vote has stayed constant, each vote has been drawing two to three times more ARB from the treasury than it did at launch, even though the dollar value delegates receive is the same.

In other words, the program’s cost to the DAO in ARB terms has drifted far above where it started, purely as a function of price. The purpose of this review is to bring that ARB outlay back in line with what the program has spent on average across its duration, without changing the USD incentive delegates can earn per vote relative to the new levels.

The data

For each category, we measured the ARB spent per proposal across every month the program has run, converting each month’s USD distribution to ARB at the price on the payout date. We then compared that historical average to what each proposal costs today. This exercise helped us define what the new budgets should be so the ARB expenditure can be more in line with the historical average.

Category Avg ARB / proposal (program history) ARB cost today at old budget ARB cost today at new budget
On-chain constitutional quorum ~131,300 ~200,000 ~133,300
On-chain non-constitutional quorum ~76,100 ~93,300 ~66,700
Off-chain decision-making ~48,900 ~93,300 ~66,700
Off-chain election ~33,300 ~93,300 ~66,700
Off-chain temperature check ~42,900 ~66,700 ~40,000

(ARB converted at ~$0.075, the prevailing price at the time of this review)

With the new budgets, constitutional and temperature-check votes land almost exactly on their historical norms while decision-making, election, and non-constitutional votes settle modestly above, a deliberate margin that avoids over-cutting and reflects that several categories have limited historical data (the election and non-constitutional tiers have each occurred only once so far).

What is not changing

  • USD denomination. Budgets remain set in USD and converted to ARB at payout. This keeps delegate rewards predictable in dollar terms and means future reviews can adjust again if the ARB price moves materially in either direction.
  • Eligibility and rationale rules. The participation thresholds and rationale requirements introduced in prior updates are unaffected.

Review cadence

These budgets will be revisited at the next quarterly review. Because the program is USD-denominated, large swings in the ARB price are the main trigger for adjustment. If the ARB price bounces back toward the levels it was at when the program started, we’ll revise the budgets again to reflect that.

I understand the rationale behind wanting to reduce the amount of ARB distributed while the token price remains depressed. That said, I think it’s equally important to recognize why ARB is trading at these levels. For the past two years, many delegates and community members have repeatedly raised the need to bring additional value and utility to the ARB token beyond governance. Those concerns have largely gone unaddressed by Arbitrum Aligned Entities.

Today, the primary purpose of the ARB token is governance, yet governance participation has been steadily declining. Reducing delegate incentives may help reduce ARB outflows in the short term, but it also risks further weakening governance by making participation less worthwhile and/or delegates leaving the program. At that point, it raises a broader question: if governance participation continues to decline, what is the long-term purpose and value proposition of the ARB token??

Lastly, I don’t believe the projected savings are meaningful enough to justify the risk of further reducing delegate participation. Governance is already facing declining engagement, fewer active delegates, and lower voting activity. If anything, we should be looking for ways to strengthen participation, not weaken it.
What makes this especially difficult to reconcile is that we just recently approved a much larger funding requests with no pushback and no accountability, yet you are reducing delegates incentives??