Tekr0x.eth - Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
,
22

September 2025

Snapshot :zap::

[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 50 Dia
Voted For: The changes proposed in this proposal are logical and make sense. The discussions in video calls and the forum provided enough feedback for me to support them. Given the nature of these changes, I believe it was reasonable to combine them into a single proposal.

Revert the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) to Version 1.5
Voted in that order-Keep the current version, Abstain, Revert to 1.5, Sunset: The call to revert the changes feels like an overreaction to the current situation. While I agree with some of the points raised and recognize that the program can still be improved, I don’t think it’s fair to call it unsuccessful.

The changes introduced in version 1.7 made sense. Since we are only a few months away from the end of this DIP version, rolling back to the earlier version would be a step backward. What’s positive, though, is that this discussion has provided valuable feedback that can be considered for version 2.0 of the DIP.

[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements
Voted for the following changes: Increase cohort duration, Reduce qualification threshold, Allow members to rotate keys. These changes made the most sense. Overall, I like the simplification of the changes, without compromising the security.

Tally🗳️:

[CONSTITUTIONAL] Remove Cost Cap, Update Executors, Disable Legacy USDT Bridge
Voted For: I agree with the changes described in this proposal. All the key parts of the proposals have been well-discussed via forum topics and video calls. I voted for.

Security Council Nominee Selection (Round 1)
Voted: Split my votes between 10 candidates I believe fit best for the role of the Security Council. I wrote a tweet about what makes a great candidate, so these were my guidelines for assessing the right candidates. Tweet can be found here: https://x.com/tekr0x/status/1970790551596253332
My votes were almost evenly split between: Emilliano Bonassi, Cyfrin, Gauntlet, Griff Green, gzeon, blockful, Daniel Goldman, Immunefi, Pablo Sabbatello, Consensys.

23

October 2025

Snapshot :zap::

Transfer 8,500 ETH from the Treasury to ATMC’s ETH Treasury Strategies
Voted For: Putting assets to work to earn yield makes sense. But I agree with Jojo’s point that it’s even more valuable to direct these assets toward Arbitrum-specific projects, especially those running exclusively on Arbitrum. Every part of the DAO should focus on supporting builders and driving growth in the ecosystem. A practical way to do this is by allocating some of the assets directly to them. The ATMC could include this approach in its overall strategy.

[Constitutional] AIP: DVP Quorum
This proposal seems like a good step to help us reach quorum. However, I agree that setting quorum as a fixed percentage of Delegated Voting Power (DVP) could concentrate power among the top 10 delegates, who reportedly control around 40%. In extreme cases, this could lead to DAO paralysis, which is a valid concern. That said, I believe this proposal is worth experimenting with at this stage to maintain momentum. The fight against centralization and for decentralization can continue in other areas - not just through quorum design.

AGV Council Compensation Calibration: Benchmark for Future Council Terms
Voted For: This topic has been debated a lot on the forum, and it really comes down to one question: should we attract top talent to Arbitrum? The answer is clearly yes. To do that, our compensation needs to be competitive. Whether the current compensation is fair for the work being done is a separate issue. That should be addressed through clear KPIs and goals for this group. I voted in favor to increase compesation.

[Temperature Check] Should we try a Delegate Incentive Program like the Arbitrum Triple Dip?
Voted Against: I appreciate the effort that went into creating a new version of the incentive program, but I believe the Triple Dip focuses on the wrong areas. It places too much responsibility on delegates, instead of program managers, to rate each other’s contributions. This could create a toxic environment with cliques or biased agreements/ratings.

The DAO Incentive Program (DIP 2.0)
Voted For: For me, the key question about DIP 2.0 is: can a delegate who spends time building meaningful contributions that help grow Arbitrum still be motivated enough to actively participate in the DAO? In this case, the answer is yes, and that’s why I voted FOR.

I’ve mentioned many times before that I’d like to see 100s of contributors as part of the Arbitrum DAO. The new version of the DIP, in my opinion, could help us get there. It’s best to start with something good enough and then evolve it into DIP 2.1, 2.2, and so on.

Tally🗳️:

Security Council Member Election (Round 2)
Voted: Split my votes between 3 candidates I believe fit best for the role of the Security Council.
My votes were almost evenly split between: Gauntlet, Griff Green, zachXBT. I wrote a tweet about what makes a great candidate, so these were my guidelines for assessing the right candidates. Tweet can be found here: https://x.com/tekr0x/status/1970790551596253332

Transfer 8,500 ETH from the Treasury to ATMC’s ETH Treasury Strategies
Voted For: Same reason as my Snapshot comment. Regarding my “fund Arbitrum builders” I think this vote is not necessarily related to that. This could be dealt as ATMC strategy instead.