I originally posted my delegate statement here when I started participating in Arbitrum governance. This thread will be for ongoing updates and communication.
What’s Changed Since My Original Statement:
I’m now Grants Manager at Uniswap Foundation (previously Head of Partnerships at Gitcoin, now in an advisory role there). I also maintain the Crypto Grant Wire ( Telegram: View @cryptograntwire ) and do advisory work with teams like Karma.
Current Approach:
I’ll focus on areas where I can add real value, primarily around grants, funding mechanisms, and program design. I’ll post my rationales regularly and share relevant insights from other DAOs where appropriate.
Disclosure:
All opinions and posts are my own and do not reflect those of Uniswap Foundation or any other organization I work with. I currently serve in roles across ENS, Optimism, Scroll, and COW, and maintain an advisory relationship with Gitcoin. I’ll recuse myself from votes with clear conflicts of interest.
Posting here some voting rationales from votes in the last 30 days. I will work on being more consistent moving forward to ensure these are posted more regularly.
Voting for this technical improvement to reduce L2 gas price volatility. The proposed changes helps offset reduced congestion pricing revenue while discouraging spam.
Abstaining because I lack the context and details needed to evaluate this additional compensation structure. I supported the benchmark calibration for future terms as it establishes standards going forward, but additional startup-phase bonuses for current members require clearer justification of amounts and deliverables.
Voting against as I think we need straightforward compensation for voting participation and rationales, with contributor work funded through clear scope-of-work proposals.
Note: These kinds of votes may affect my compensation as a delegate if passed
I voted for three candidates in this election. Given the shielded voting format, I’ll respect the intent of that design and not disclose my selections publicly. I reviewed all six candidates and allocated my voting power to those I believe will best serve AGV’s mandate.
Voting in favor. As I noted during the forum discussion, DIP 2.0’s complexity pushed me away from active participation. I think RAD helps fix this with its eligibility requirements and a focus on voting and rationales rather than performance theater. The per-proposal structure and quarterly budget flexibility let OpCo adjust based on real data.
Disclosure: This vote affects my compensation as a delegate.
Voting in favor. Technical upgrade outside my expertise, but L2BEAT, Lampros, and Castle found no issues after detailed review and I trust their judgement.