TempeTechie.eth Delegate Communication Thread

Governance Delegate Statements
1

Hi everyone, this is my (Tempe Techie) delegate communication thread.

Basic info:

About me:
I am a software developer with over 10 years of professional experience. In the past 4 years I have been full-time in web3 development, using mainly Solidity (for smart contracts) and JavaScript/Vue on the frontend.

My focus is mainly on non-financial usecases of crypto, especially Web3 Social (e.g. social networks, chats etc.). I think tools which enable decentralized communication and governance are of major importance.

Some of the tools I’ve built include the Arbitrum Delegate Frame on Farcaster, which allows Farcaster users to check who their delegate is, and set a new delegate if needed. Another tool is called Iggy and it’s a Web3 Social framework, sort of like “wordpress” for web3 social.

I am an active voter in the Arbitrum DAO. I support proposals which are geared towards decentralization, censorship-resistance, and better communication & governance.

I often attend Ethereum conferences (Devcon, DevConnect, ETH Prague etc.) so you can meet me there and discuss everything related Arbitrum and Web3 Social.

4 Likes
2

NOVEMBER 2024

Snapshot:

Snapshot Proposal: Adopt a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalize Operations
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I vote FOR the proposal. I don’t see any issues with it, and I believe it’s good for the DAO.

As for the Shielded Vote that olimpio mentioned, I think the will of the voters was clear - they support the shielded vote (56.69% approval). The difference in interpretation of this vote may arise from whether you’re more familiar with the “first-past-the-post” voting system or with the “proportional” voting system. Personally, I believe the proportional system better represents the will of the voters, which means it’s fair to sum up the total votes in favor of the shielded vote.

Snapshot Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I am generally in favour of the idea of the proposal, but I agree with Tekr0x.eth that we should see a more precise plan (or guardrails) for selling ARB for stablecoins.

One idea is to have a daily limit (as percentage of ARB volume) on ARBs sold. Another is to perhaps also sell part of ETH, not just ARB. And also to extend the timeline of selling ARB (3 months may be too short if we don’t want to impact the price too much).

I also echo 404DAO’s suggestion of having only one committee instead of two.

That said, I’m voting FOR the proposal in the Snapshot voting. But I’d need the changes I mentioned (especially the guardrails for selling ARB) to be implemented in the proposal before supporting it in the Tally vote.

+an update after I asked a question on the Governance Call:

Updating my thoughts based on the feedback by Sam Martin on today’s Governance call.

As per Sam, Entropy will not define in the Tally proposal how exactly ARB will be liquidated for stablecoins. Instead, this will be a task for the TMC committee after (if) the Tally vote passes.

The good thing is that TMC will put their plan of ARB liquidation on the Snapshot vote, so if DAO members don’t agree with it, ARB will not get liquidated in that way.

To me, this is sufficient enough, so I plan to vote FOR the proposal on Tally.

Snapshot proposal: Restitution For Extensively Delayed ArbitrumDAO Minigrant Winners
Voted: AGAINST
Reasoning (link):

Too long delay in ARB payouts is very unfortunate and understandably painful for recipients. But the grant rules were clear about the payment being in ARB tokens. As chamadao said, the proposed restitution would create a dangerous precedent. For that reason, I vote against the proposal.

Snapshot proposal: Hackathon Continuation Program
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR the proposal. I think it’s good to experiment with a program that helps the best hackathon projects grow and succeed even after the hackathon is over.

If this program proves to be successful, it would make sense to do a v2 of the program, but this time perhaps including finalists from past ETHGlobal hackathons. This would create a larger pool of high-quality projects and bring promising teams and developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Tally:

Tally Proposal: (V2) Arbitrum Research & Development Collective
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally, especially based on how well ARDC v1 performed with the STIP analysis. The proposed budget is the lowest among the choices that were listed in Snapshot, but I’m sure the DAO could provide some additional funds (through a new proposal) if the need for that will arise.

Tally Proposal: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it provides a better system of organizing and funding DAO-related events.

As for whether to organize an Arbitrum-specific event not attached to any other conference, I think this sounds better on paper than in reality (at this point). I see for myself that when I travel to attend a crypto event, I choose to attend large conferences with many (side) events rather than to attend a smaller specific event with no other events around it (because it’s easier to justify the personal travel cost of attending a larger conference with side events). In the future, when the Arbitrum community grows, it could have its own major conference, but for now, let’s stick with side events attached to some major conference (e.g. an Ethereum conference or a non-crypto conference like krst from L2Beat proposed).

Governance calls in November:

  • I attended the bi-weekly Arbitrum governance call on 19 November 2024.
  • I did not attend the previous call on 5 November due to traveling to Thailand for Devcon 2024.
2 Likes
3

SNAPSHOT (DECEMBER 2024):

Snapshot proposal: [Non-consitutional] User Research: Why build on Arbitrum?
Voted: FOR (Arbitrum + 2 others)
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting “FOR + two others” the proposal because we truly lack a deeper understanding of how developers see Arbitrum and building on it. While I am one of these developers, I’d like to see how others think about it and how their views differ from mine.

Danielo, does the “+ two others (SOL & OP)” include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.

Snapshot proposal: Designing and operating the reporting and information function
Voted: ABSTAIN (because the proposal author announced it’s cancelled)
Reasoning (link):

Overall I like the idea, but as many others have mentioned the main concern is the size of the budget. Since the proposal is supposed to be cancelled (as mentioned in the governance call), I voted abstain.

Snapshot proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
Voted: FOR (Renew with 5 domains)
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot, more precisely the option “Renew with 5 domains”.

When it comes to attracting developers to apply for the grant, I suggest also taking a look at past ETH Global hackathon winners. Some gems may be hiding there, even if they deployed their projects on another chain (this grant can get them to move to Arbitrum).

Snapshot proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. V1 was a pilot project, so it makes sense to do a V2 based on everything that the proposal team learned from V1. After V2 is completed and evaluation done, we’ll have a better picture whether such program works and perhaps repeat it in the future.

Snapshot Elections:

I voted in all these 4 elections, but since votes are confidential, I won’t share how I voted until the voting is over.

Reasoning (link):

I went through all applications and gave each candidate a 1-10 score (which was then automatically translated into percentages). Because the vote is shielded, I will reveal my choices after the election is over, so that I don’t impact how other people vote.

EDIT (after voting ended):

I’ve read through all applications and graded candidates with a score 1-10 based on my subjective opinion. The reason I did that instead of just choosing one or two candidates is that I believe all candidates bring something valuable to the table, which is why I prefer proportional voting instead of “winner-takes-all” approach.

Here is my vote reveal:

Supervisory Council Election: 12.24% for Frisson (Comm Role), 14.29% for JuanRah + AlexLumley (Comm Role), 14.29% for Jameskbh (Comm Role), 16.33% for Entropy Adv. + Tamara (Op Role) , 14.29% for Pedro Breuer (Comm Role) , 12.24% for Violet Benson (Comm Role) , 16.33% for ZER8 (Comm Role).

Research Election: 17.07% for Revelo Intel, 17.07% for PYOR Research, 19.51% for The Block Research, 21.95% for Llama Research & Castle Capital, 24.39% for Blockworks Advisory.

Risk Election: 20.51% for Vending Machine, 23.08% for TAU Labs, 15.38% for Jupiter Block, 17.95% for DeFiSafety, 23.08% for Nethermind.

In the Security Election I decided to give 100% of my vote to one candidate, OpenZeppelin, because of its lengthy presence in the crypto world; commitment to open source development via smart contract templates, which increase overall security in the space (and they do it free of charge); extensive experience in auditing; and last but not least, their past work and experience as Security Member of the ARDC.

Snapshot proposal: Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I vote FOR the proposal. Every organization needs clear vision and mission statements which serve as guiding stars for everything that we do in the DAO. And we also need to take actions that follow mission, vision, and purpose statements, so I’m looking forward to the upcoming SOS proposal!

Snapshot proposal: Partner with ETH Bucharest 2025
Voted: FOR with POAP
Reasoning (link):

I voted “FOR with POAP”. I think it’s important to keep presence on crypto events, especially the ones that have a hackathon. We need to get more builders who build new and innovative dApps on Arbitrum. The more dApps we get, the higher the chance we find so called “killer apps”, which are something that any successful ecosystem needs.

Snapshot proposal: OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Voted: AGAINST
Reasoning (link):

I vote AGAINST this proposal. While I think having a legal entity is beneficial, I think it should (at least initially) be a more passive and lean entity, used only when there’s a need for it. Cutting costs is harder than adding costs, so I think OpCo should start as lean as possible, and with the shorter initial (pilot) phase which could later be extended with a new proposal.

TALLY (DECEMBER 2024):

Tally proposal: Arbitrum Hackathon Builder Continuation Program
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons stated in my Snapshot vote.

Tally proposal: Treasury Management V1.2
Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons stated in my Snapshot vote (reply 1, reply 2).

Governance calls in December:

  • I attended the bi-weekly Arbitrum governance call on 3 December 2024.
1 Like
4

JANUARY 2025

SNAPSHOT (JANUARY 2025):

Snapshot Proposal: Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR the proposal on Snapshot. The operational expenses are low enough to be easily covered by the earned interest (by my calculations, expenses currently represent less than 30% of the profits - on a monthly basis). That said, I would like to see monthly expenses as a category in each report. ARB liquidation will be done by the Arbitrum Foundation, hopefully they will do it in a way that it least effects the price (e.g. OTC) :crossed_fingers:

Snapshot Proposals: Arbitrum D.A.O. Season 3 Elections (domain allocators)

Reasoning for all (link):

First of all I would like to thank everyone who put in the work and applied for any of the positions. It was hard to choose from so many very good candidates. None of them would have been a bad fit for the role, but only one can be selected for each position. I also gave a slight preference to teams over individuals, just because they can handle the workload better. Perhaps some of the applicants can team up in the future when they’ll run for domain allocators again.

In New Protocols and Ideas, I voted for Gabriel and Diego. Gabriel has been very active in the crypto space and also has extensive experience from the tradfi world, including evaluating investments for a family office. He has presented a good overview of how he intends to work as domain allocator, focusing on bold new ideas in the most important niches of crypto today, including AI which is probably the hottest of them all.

In Education, Community Growth, and Events, I voted for SEEDGov. They have past experience as domain allocator, and they have successfully demonstrated their diligent work in other initiatives, too. They have a clear vision and well-defined key factors for approval or rejection of an application.

Dev Tooling on One and Stylus - this was a tough one. All three applications are great. In the end, I went with ariutokintumi and Arturo. They are both software developers who won several hackathon prizes, organized a hackathon before (which means good connections with developers), and developed multiple libraries on their own.

In the Gaming domain I voted for Flook and Nikki. Flook brings previous experience as a domain allocator as well as experience from running a gaming studio. Nikki brings good connections with creators from the web2 world, and personal experience as a Twitch streamer.

As I said, all the candidates are great and I wish whoever is chosen all the best with their work as domain allocators!

Snapshot Proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I think this is a good proposal. As for the rewards for reporting, perhaps the fixed amounts should be somewhat lower, because the 5% share of recovered funds is a good enough incentive in my opinion.

Also, the fixed amounts for rewards should be denominated in USD (but paid out in ARB), just in case the ARB price goes up significantly.

It would also make sense to have a pilot phase for the program (measured in months or until funds run out - whichever is first), and evaluate everything after it (including the platform), so that it can be properly improved upon.

Snapshot proposal: Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

This looks like a good process/protocol to define Arbitrum’s goals and objectives - and also to re-evaluate them every year. Based on these objectives, it will be easier for delegates to decide which governance proposals to support and which ones not (same goes for proposal authors).

Snapshot proposal: Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead

Voted: AGAINST
Reasoning (link):

I voted against the proposal. As I mentioned before, the team size is too big and the proposed salaries are way too high for the location the team comes from (India). An average yearly salary in India is well-below $10k. If the proposal was, let’s say, $20k per year per person (which is still very high for the region), and the team size was reduced to 3 full-time persons, I’d consider supporting the proposal even though monthly website views are not that high (1700 monthly non-unique page views). I suggest the team applies for a Questbook grant instead.

Snapshot proposal: Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I agree with the Timeboost upgrade. I’m curious to see how it affects latency and UX on Arbitrum One mainnet, but if it turns out to have unexpected issues I’m sure we can revert back to the old approach. I also support the Nova fee sweep action, it’s a no-brainer, that’s why I voted FOR the proposal.

TALLY (JANUARY 2025):

Tally Proposal: [Constitutional AIP] Activate Arbitrum BoLD + Infura Nova Validator Whitelist

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it’s a good and necessary step towards making the Arbitrum ecosystem more secure, permissionless, and censorship-resistant.

Tally Proposal: OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution

Voted: AGAINST
Reasoning (link):

I voted AGAINST this proposal on Tally. While I agree with having an OpCo, I think the proposal’s budget is too high and the team size is too big. I see no point in having a full-time, in-house legal counsel, as well as some other employee roles at this point. I’ve seen in other DAOs that they started similar entities with as little as one employee and would scale later on if necessary.

The correct approach is to start lean, with a narrow scope, a short initial (pilot) phase, and then evaluate and scale the budget and the team if necessary. If the proposal was framed like that, I would have supported it.

Tally Proposal: Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I’m voting FOR the proposal on Tally for the same reasons as stated in my Snapshot vote.

GOVERNANCE CALLS (JANUARY 2025):

  • I attended the bi-weekly Arbitrum governance call on 14 January 2025.
  • I attended the bi-weekly Arbitrum governance call on 28 January 2025.
3 Likes
5

FEBRUARY 2025

SNAPSHOT (FEBRUARY 2025):

Snapshot proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I agree with increasing the budget, we need innovative Stylus projects. It’s also great to hear that so many builders applied, running out of a budget in this case is definitely a good “problem” to have (better than seeing low interest from builders).

Also, I agree with JoJo to not extend the application window, because this may lead to the budget shortage again.

Snapshot proposal: Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I think we need such initiatives to increase builder activity on Arbitrum.

My only suggestion is to not invite only early stage web3 startups, but also include more established web3 projects. A mix of new and experienced builders will provide better results, and better understanding of project needs at different stages of their business lifecycle.

The budget does not seem excesive given that there will also be in-person events at major conferences. Meeting peers and delegates in person helps develop stronger bonds and is more likely to result in collaboration between projects.

Snapshot proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR the proposal. I especially like the EIP-7702 changes which will improve user experience, of course after clients (frontends) implement support for this upcoming functionality. Also, the cryptographic precompiles will enable some cool new dApps, I’m looking forward to that too!

Snapshot proposal: Arbitrum Audit Program

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR the proposal on Snapshot. I’d like to add here that the Arbitrum DAO has recently begun the process of selecting Arbitrum’s strategic objectives (SOS). Eventually this will lead to initiatives that will help launch apps/projects on Arbitrum that align with these objectives. Why do I mention that? I hope Arbitrum Audit Committee will prioritize such projects and dApps.

TALLY (FEBRUARY 2025):

Tally proposal: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR on Tally. I think it’s important to have a grants program running, because we need a stream of new and innovative dApps in order to get to a few home runs which would bring a lot of users and liquidity to Arbitrum.

I understand that there can be improvements in the grants program, like @Entropy suggested, but I think it is not wise to vote against this proposal for something that may be better and it’s not clear when it will come.

Also, I don’t mind having two (or even more) grant programs running in parallel. So if Entropy (or someone else) comes up with an even better grants program a few months from now, I’m willing to support that one too. As I said, we need innovative dApps, preferably targeting end users, and with a great mobile UX.

Tally proposal: Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR on Tally for the same reason I voted for on Snapshot:

I agree with increasing the budget, we need innovative Stylus projects. It’s also great to hear that so many builders applied, running out of a budget in this case is definitely a good “problem” to have (better than seeing low interest from builders).

Also, I agree with JoJo to not extend the application window, because this may lead to the budget shortage again.

GOVERNANCE CALLS (FEBRUARY 2025):

I attended these calls:

  • 5 Feb 2025: 22nd GRC - Part A | Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call (GRC)
  • 7 Feb 2025: 22nd GRC - Part B | Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call (GRC)
  • 11 Feb 2025: Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call
2 Likes
6

MARCH 2025

SNAPSHOT (MARCH 2025):

Snapshot proposal: TMC Recommendation (canceled)

This snapshot vote was later canceled.

Voted: FOR (#3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy)
Reasoning (link):

I voted FOR, with “#3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy” as the top choice, and “#1 Deploy both” as the second choice. As noted in the today’s Open Discussion of Proposals call, stablecoins are needed in our treasury to pay, for example, service providers.

I trust that TMC partners will be able to convert ARB to stablecoins in a way that least impacts the price. If service providers are paid in ARB instead, they will simply sell it on the market which is the least preferable way of converting ARB to stablecoins.

This is why it’s better if ARB-to-stablecoin conversion is done through an initiative such as TMC, which should affect price less than just dumping ARB on the market.

Btw, next time I suggest that you make a better title for the proposal. I imagine there may be some other TMC recommendations in the future, so you could have at least named it “TMC Recommendation 1”, or “TMC Recommendation March 2025”.

Snapshot proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router

Voted: FOR
Rationale:

I voted in favour on Snapshot since this is a collaboration between Offchain Labs and Sky - It will benefit Arbitrum, its users, and its DeFi ecosystem.

Snapshot proposal: GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)

Voted: FOR
Rationale:

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I think it’s a good mix of conservative allocations and a more risky allocation. I like the fact that one of the native Arbitrum protocols/dApps was included. Hopefully in the future more Arbitrum-native protocols will be included, but of course we also need to work on having more liquid and less risky native protocols available.

Snapshot proposal: OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections

I voted for the following candidates (equal vote for each of them):

  • Federico Daffina
  • Jana Bertram
  • Patrick McCorry
  • Paul Imseih
  • Pedro Breuer

Snapshot proposal: TMC Stablecoin Recommendation

Voted: YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy
Rationale:

Just like in the first snapshot vote (which was later canceled), I vote for deploying the stablecoin strategy.

Snapshot proposal: TMC ARB Recommendation

Voted: NO, Deploy Nothing
Rationale:

I’m following my initial snapshot vote (the one that was later canceled) and the TMC recommendation by voting “NO, Deploy Nothing” on the ARB strategy.

Snapshot proposal: [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols

Voted: FOR
Rationale (link):

On one hand the budget seems a bit high ($50k/project/month), but on the other hand if we want to really test out a lot of different channels, it requires a higher budget. Also, this are the max amounts, the final cost may be lower than that. On top of that we will get a detailed report on effectiveness of each channel, which may be the most important result of this proposal. For this reason, I voted FOR the proposal on Snapshot.

TALLY (MARCH 2025):

Tally proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep

Voted: FOR
Reasoning (link):

Voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons I voted FOR on Snapshot.

Tally proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program

Voted: FOR

Reasoning:

I kept my vote in favour like in the Snapshot vote. I think an audit program will come very useful for projects built to meet SOS objectives in the upcoming year or two.

Tally proposal: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp

Voted: FOR

Reasoning:

I kept the same vote as in the Snapshot vote. I think developing a curriculum and a framework for delegate education can be beneficial for the Arbitrum DAO.

SECURITY COUNCIL (MARCH 2025):

In the Nominee Selection I split my votes between these candidates:

  • Ackee Blockchain Security
  • bartek.eth
  • Blockful
  • Hari (Spearbit)
  • Jack Sanford
  • Jake Nyquist
  • Michael Levellen
  • OpenZeppelin

GOVERNANCE CALLS (MARCH 2025):

I attended these calls:

  • 11 Mar 2025: Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call
  • 12 Mar 2025: 23rd GRC - Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call
  • 25 Mar 2025: Open Discussion of Proposal(s) - Bi-weekly Governance Call
1 Like
7

APRIL 2025

SECURITY COUNCIL (APRIL 2025):

I voted for the following people/entities for the Security Council:

  • fred (33% of my VP)
  • yoav.eth (32% of my VP)
  • bartek.eth (29% of my VP)
  • Hari (1.5% of my VP)
  • Jake Nyquist (1.5% of my VP)
  • Michael Lewellen (1.5% of my VP)
  • OpenZeppelin (1.5% of my VP)

GOVERNANCE CALLS (APRIL 2025):

I attended these calls:

  • 8 Apr 2025: Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call
  • 9 Apr 2025: Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call (GRC)
  • 22 Apr 2025: Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call
  • SOS Discussion Calls on 10 Apr, 14 Apr, 16 Apr, 22 Apr, 23 Apr, 25 Apr, 28 Apr
8

MAY 2025

SNAPSHOT (MAY 2025):

Snapshot proposal: Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations

Voted: FOR
Reasoning:

I support the recommendation set forth by the committee.

Snapshot proposal: [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program

Voted: Yes to both
Reasoning:

The proposal sets the most straight-forward way to solve the problem of reduced funds in the Hackathon Continuation Program, as well as to send the leftover funds directly to TMC. It made sense to say yes to both.

Snapshot proposal: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)

Voted: FOR
Reasoning:

I like that this incentive program has a novel approach, focusing on targeting specific assets/activities. I also think liquidity is more sticky than we think, even after incentives are gone. What I’m not that comfortable with is the size of the ask. I’d rather see a pilot program with a smaller amount first. But because there are ways to end the program prematurely and clawback funds if necessary, I was okay with voting for the proposal on Snapshot.

Snapshot proposal: [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction

Voted: FOR
Reasoning:

I voted in favour of this proposal, but I consider lowering the quorum as a short-term solution. For a more sustainable solution I support the ideas of delegating some amount of tokens from the treasury to most active delegates.

TALLY (MAY 2025):

Tally proposal: The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program

Voted: FOR
Reasoning:

I kept my FOR vote that I made on Snapshot. It’s a no-brainer decision to have a program that helps prevent the misuse of funds, so I had no problem supporting the proposal.

Tally proposal: [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto

Voted: FOR
Reasoning:

I voted FOR on Tally, for the same reasons already described in my February Snapshot vote.

GOVERNANCE CALLS (MAY 2025):

I attended these calls:

  • 6 May 2025: Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call
  • 7 May 2025: Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call (GRC)
  • 16 May 2025: OpCo Monthly call
  • 20 May 2025: Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call
  • SOS Discussion Call on 7 May.