If your budget has been managed efficiently, the existing funds should be sufficient. Increasing the budget would be an unnecessary financial burden. If everyone requests a budget increase on short notice, it will affect funding for other important proposals in the future. I suggest that these projects should not rely on DAO grants—good projects will attract investors to fund them. In my opinion, there is absolutely no need to increase the budget.
I will be Against !
voting FOR on this onchain proposal because overall I think it is better to fund these projects (which are indeed high quality) than not to fund them. But, as per my previous offchain vote, I really don’t agree with the approach that was followed by the proposers here, as I think the DAO should have done another totally independent season of this grant program instead of an extension that asked almost double the money than initially aproved, mostly so that other high quality projects could apply as well and compete for the funds. The approach that was followed by @Entropy here, where they published a public proposal to the DAO with the specific projects that would be funded and by how much, put the DAO and its delegates in a kind of hostage situation, where if the DAO would have decided not to fund this extension, Arbitrum DAO would be seen as not welcoming to these builders that applied to the program and were expecting the funding. I feel like our delegates hand was forced into approving this proposal, and I must say that hereby I cast my onchain FOR vote a little bit… in protest.
Voting For onchain keep the same though as before, the level of the extra proposals its excelent and worth the extra budget.
I will be voting FOR onchain on Tally. Happy to double down on my previous Snapshot vote as I believe there is enough value to pursue in the applications that would benefit from it. However, upon further consideration I do share the same concerns as @paulofonseca where extensions should not be the SOP for prolonging programs without a greater revision of their success or results, especially when such a large budget increase is required.
Will be keeping an eye out for similar cases in the future to avoid this becoming the norm.
I’m voting FOR on this proposal on Tally because there are some several high quality projects worth funding through this extension of the program’s budget. And I think is better for Arbitrum tu build these ideas than to not build them at all. I really don’t have much to say about this, but to agree and hope to see positive outcomes…
Overall, we are in support of this proposal as it represents an efficient mechanism to capture additional value from an already successful program, strengthening Arbitrum’s position in the Layer 2 ecosystem through strategic investment in Stylus development.
We find this proposal for extending the Stylus Sprint budget to be well-warranted given the exceptional quality and quantity of applications received. The initiative has clearly struck a chord with the builder community, evidenced by the 147 applications requesting nearly 32M ARB - far exceeding initial expectations.
While we understand the concerns raised by some delegates regarding the precedent of program extensions versus new seasons, we believe the immediate opportunity to fund these high-quality projects outweighs these procedural considerations. The caliber of the selected projects and their potential impact on the Stylus ecosystem makes this a compelling use of DAO resources.
Revising our stance to FOR on tally
The consensus from other delegates seem to be the quality of projects is high so overalll we believe the benefits outweigh the risks despite some concerns. The additional 4M ARB investment will accelerate Stylus adoption, strengthen Arbitrum’s ecosystem, and fairly support deserving applicants. We would vote FOR the proposal while encouraging strong tracking of project deliverables.
While budget discipline is important, this extension does not necessarily lower the bar—it allows the DAO to capture additional value by funding well-vetted projects that narrowly missed the original cut.
Stylus is a strategic priority for Arbitrum, and investing in additional infrastructure, tooling, and applications will strengthen its competitive edge.
However, to prevent setting an unsustainable precedent, the DAO should treat this as an exception and ensure future grant programs are structured with more accurate budget planning from the start.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Similarly as with the off-chain proposal, LobbyFi will price the instant buy at 1% of the highest individual grant amount, setting the price at 1.75 ETH (1M ARB * 0.5 ARB/$ * 1%). The auction will be on, as for most of the (on-chain) proposals LobbyFi will be making its VP available for.
I’m voting for this proposal. The Stylus Sprint attracted very quality applicants. The applicants that didnt make the cut look AMAZING, let’s get them building so we can show the blockchain space how epic Stylus is.
I think this vote shows how nimble as a DAO we can be 
Blockworks Advisory is voting FOR this proposal.
By and large, our reasoning here has not changed.
I’m again confirming my feedback voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
More funding means we can accelerate Arbitrum’s growth and give projects with untapped potential the green light
Aped
I voted FOR on Tally for the same reason I voted for on Snapshot.
Voting FOR on tally for the same reasons of the Snapshot vote