June 2026 was the first month with five governance actions in scope, which moved the monthly participation threshold back to ≥ 75% (four or fewer proposals → 50%; five or more → 75%).
Across five proposals, 36 enrolled delegates cast votes on123 delegate–proposal instances (68.33% program participation). 20 delegates received $29,000.00 in total RAD rewards (full budget utilization on all five proposal sheets). 82 of 123 voted instances (66.67%) had an on-time public rationale; delegates who voted without a timely rationale remained eligible for rewards where monthly participation and minimum VP rules were met, with a 10% trim applied on that proposal’s payout.
Compared with May 2026 (four votes, 50% threshold, $52,000 envelope): June had lower aggregate participation (68.33% vs 75.69%), fewer delegates paid (20 vs 30), and a smaller total distribution ($29,000vs $52,000), but a higher on-time rationale rate among vote instances (66.67% vs 48.62%).
Participation and Incentivized VP totals look softer than May’s not because fewer delegates voted, but because 3-of-5—eligible in spirit under May’s 50%-of-four frame—no longer passes the monthly bar, leaving deployed VP in the tables without corresponding eligible VP.
June 2026 spent the full $29,000 RAD budget across five votes, with 20 delegates paid under the restored 75%rule.
What changed vs May
| Rule | May 2026 | June 2026 (this report) |
|---|---|---|
| Proposals in month | 4 | 5 |
| Monthly participation | ≥ 50% | ≥ 75% (≥ 4/5 votes) |
| Missing rationale within 5 days | −10% on that proposal’s reward | Same |
| Total RAD envelope | $52,000 | $29,000 |
Details and rationale for the policy shift are in the March 2026 RAD update and the formal eligibility update.
June participants
36 delegates enrolled in June (unchanged vs May):
- New: none
- Departures: none
- Cohort: identical enrollment list to May 2026.
Total distributed: $29,000.00
Delegates paid: 20
Source: Total Reward Summary sheet
Full payout list (by total reward, descending)
| Delegate | Proposals voted | Total ($) |
|---|---|---|
| Areta | 5 | 1,900.00 |
| GMX | 5 | 1,900.00 |
| SEEDGov | 5 | 1,900.00 |
| DZack23 | 5 | 1,900.00 |
| L2BEAT | 5 | 1,870.00 |
| Yoav | 5 | 1,840.00 |
| Arana Digital | 5 | 1,840.00 |
| MaxLomu | 5 | 1,804.59 |
| Camelot | 5 | 1,710.00 |
| Gauntlet | 5 | 1,710.00 |
| Olimpio | 5 | 1,710.00 |
| MerlynLabs | 5 | 1,705.69 |
| Griff | 4 | 1,550.00 |
| Cornell Blockchain | 5 | 1,505.54 |
| Jojo | 5 | 1,459.61 |
| Uniswap Delegation | 5 | 1,194.94 |
| Zeptimus | 5 | 439.81 |
| Axia Network (ex 404 DAO) | 5 | 431.39 |
| cp0x | 5 | 337.22 |
| Sov | 4 | 291.21 |
Not paid (June): Aave, Blockworks Research, Castle Labs, Coinflip, GFXLabs, Karpatkey, LamprosDAO, Layer3, Limes, MUX, Michigan, Mihal, Mikael Bondum, Reverie, TodayInDeFi, whizwang (insufficient participation, VP, and/or zero eligible VP across sheets).
Voting breakdown - June 2026
Five proposals counted toward June RAD participation and rewards:
1. [Constitutional] AIP: Minimize Arbitrum Nova
- Type: Snapshot — temperature check (constitutional)
- Budget/cap: $5,000 · $300 / delegate
- Vote end (UTC): 2026-06-04 13:38
- Link: Snapshot proposal · Forum
- RAD voters: 28 / 36 (77.8% of enrolled)
- On-time rationales (among voters): 17 (60.7%)
2. Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation
- Type: Snapshot — temperature check (non-binding)
- Budget / cap: $5,000 · $300 / delegate
- Vote end (UTC): 2026-06-04 15:55
- Link: Snapshot proposal · Forum
- RAD voters: 27 / 36 (75.0%)
- On-time rationales: 18 (66.7%)
3. [Constitutional] AIP: Transition Arbitrum One ordering policy to Priority Gas Auctions (PGA)
- Type: Snapshot — temperature check (constitutional)
- Budget / cap: $5,000 · $300 / delegate
- Vote end (UTC): 2026-06-25 16:22
- Link: Snapshot proposal · Forum
- RAD voters: 22 / 36 (61.1%)
- On-time rationales: 17 (77.3%)
4. Extending DRIP’s Mandate
- Type: Snapshot — decision-making (non-constitutional)
- Budget / cap: $7,000 · $500 / delegate
- Vote end (UTC): 2026-06-25 16:40
- Link: Snapshot proposal · Forum
- RAD voters: 21 / 36 (58.3%)
- On-time rationales: 17 (81.0%)
5. Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation
- Type: On-chain (Treasury)
- Budget / cap: $7,000 · $500 / delegate
- Vote end (UTC): 2026-06-25 18:24
- Link: Tally proposal · Forum topic 30908
- RAD voters: 25 / 36 (69.4%)
- On-time rationales: 13 (52.0%)
Total RAD budget envelope (June): $29,000 ($5k + $5k + $5k + $7k + $7k). All five sheets show full budget spend in the workbook.
Participation
| Metric | June 2026 | May 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Enrolled delegates | 36 | 36 |
| Proposals in scope | 5 | 4 |
| Program participation (aggregate) | 68.33% (123 / 180) | 75.69% (109 / 144) |
| Delegates with 100% (5/5 or 4/4) | 18 | 19 |
| Delegates with 80% (4/5) | 2 | — |
| Delegates with 60% (3/5) | 5 | 7 at 75% (3/4) |
| Delegates with 40% (2/5) | 5 | 4 at 50% (2/4) |
| Delegates with 0% | 6 | 2 |
| Met monthly threshold (≥ 75% June / ≥ 50% May) | 20 | 30 |
Rationale requirement
Among instances where an enrolled delegate cast a vote:
| June 2026 | May 2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| Vote instances | 123 | 109 |
| On-time rationale | 82 (66.67%) | 53 (48.62%) |
| Voted without on-time rationale | 41 | 56 |
The Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation (on-chain) had the lowest rationale rate among voters (52.0%); DRIP had the highest (81.0%).
Voting power & incentivized VP
From RAD Program - June 2026 Results (1).xlsx — table TOTAL row (VP = column B; Eligible VP = column E; Incentivized VP % = row below the table):
| Proposal | Total VP deployed | Incentivized VP (Eligible VP, TOTAL) | Incentivized % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrum Nova Snapshot | 159,115,744 ARB | 114,841,910 ARB | 72.18% |
| Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation Snap | 147,134,709 ARB | 105,323,361 ARB | 71.58% |
| PGA Snapshot | 141,579,472 ARB | 122,450,081 ARB | 86.49% |
| DRIP Mandate Snapshot | 131,579,451 ARB | 122,450,081 ARB | 93.06% |
| Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation Onchain | 171,996,769 ARB | 122,780,108 ARB | 71.39% |
Incentivized % is materially lower than in May (~97–100% per sheet). The gap is not mainly about rationales or minimum VP—it is about the monthly participation gate on column E.
When a delegate’s monthly participation rate (column D) is below 75%, Eligible VP is zero on every proposal they voted, even on rows where they cast a vote and hold well above 200k ARB. That VP still appears in Total VP deployed (column B) but drops out of the incentivized pool.
June makes this visible because five delegates at 60% (3/5) — Blockworks Research, Coinflip, GFXLabs, Mihal, TodayInDeFi are active voters on three late-month proposals but miss the fourth vote required for June eligibility. In May, with four proposals and a 50% threshold, 3/4 (75%) and 2/4 (50%) both cleared the monthly bar; seven delegates at exactly 75% (3/4) kept full row-level Eligible VP.
Late-month sheets (PGA, DRIP) show higher incentivized % (86–93%) because the delegates who still have Eligible VP are largely the 4/5+ cohort that voted across both waves.
Conclusions & observations
June is the first month where the ≥ 5 proposals → 75% participation rule applied, alongside a two-wave voting calendar and a $29,000 envelope.
1. The 75% threshold reduced who got paid
Only 20 of 36 enrolled delegates received rewards vs 30 in May. Five delegates at 60% (3/5) voted on a majority of proposals but fell short of the four-vote monthly requirement, whereas in May, 3/4 was enough to qualify.
2. Two voting waves shaped turnout
Early June votes: 75–78% enrolled turnout. Late June: 58–69%. Delegates who missed the early pair could not reach 4/5 even with strong late-month participation.
3. Rationale rate rose vs May
66.67% of vote instances had on-time rationales vs 48.62% in May. Continued Funding for the Arbitrum Foundation (on-chain) remained the weakest (52.0% among voters), often with only a Snapshot-phase rationale on the same topic.
4. Lower incentivized VP % reflects a higher participation threshold
Per-sheet Incentivized VP % (~72–93%) sits well below May’s ~97–100% because deployed VP (column B) still counts delegates who voted at 3/5 monthly participation, while Eligible VP (column E) zeroes them out entirely. That mechanical split is the main story behind June’s lower incentivized ratios—especially on early-June proposals where high-VP 3/5 delegates voted but did not clear 75% monthly participation.