Below you’ll find ArbitrumDAO’s Code of Conduct, approved through the governance process on April 2, 2026. For more historical context, scroll to the bottom.
Values Alignment
Arbitrum contributors should always strive to uphold the seven community values stated in Section 6:
-
Ethereum-aligned: Arbitrum is part of the Ethereum ecosystem and community
-
Sustainable: Focus on long-term health of the protocol over short-term gains
-
Secure: Arbitrum is security-minded
-
Socially inclusive: Open and welcoming to all constructive participants
-
Technically inclusive: Accessible for ordinary people with ordinary technology
-
User-focused: Managed for the benefit of all users
-
Neutral and open: Foster open innovation, interoperability, user choice, and healthy competition
Good Faith and Best Interest
-
Contributors should conduct themselves with honesty, integrity, and transparency, fostering trust and confidence among community members.
-
Contributors should act and vote in accordance with what they see is in the best interests of Arbitrum, which encompasses but is not limited to all of the following: Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, the Orbit Ecosystem, and any future Arbitrum DAO-governed chains as outlined in Section 1 of the Arbitrum Constitution.
Due Care and Attention
-
Contributors should remain knowledgeable of developments in regard to Arbitrum DAO’s initiatives and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.
-
Contributors should strive to make a professional and unbiased review of each proposal before submitting their vote.
-
Contributors are advised to vote abstain when unable to conduct the necessary diligence to understand the proposals.
Civility and Professionalism
-
While separate from the Code of Conduct, contributors are expected to uphold the community guidelines for activity on the Arbitrum DAO forum and de facto understood gathering places for the Arbitrum DAO, whether online or in-person.
-
Contributors should seek to create a respectful and inclusive environment for all community members, free from harassment and discrimination.
-
Unacceptable behavior includes, but is not limited to:
-
Publicly or privately harassing or intimidating others
-
Sharing someone’s private information without their consent
-
Using sexualized language or imagery, or making unwanted advances
-
Making insulting or derogatory comments about others
-
-
Contributors should strive to provide constructive feedback that is well-researched and respectful, focusing on the proposal’s merits. Personal attacks are never acceptable.
-
Contributors should be open-minded and respectful of differing viewpoints, even if they disagree with them. Disagreements are an inevitable part of healthy debate, but they often yield positive results when approached in a civil manner.
-
Contributors should make a best effort to provide constructive feedback through appropriate channels and avoid taking discussions to social media in a manner that could tarnish Arbitrum DAO’s brand and reputation.
-
Contributors should avoid making unsubstantiated accusations that imply malice without proper evidence. They should conduct proper due diligence before making any public accusations via social media, public forums, or any other recognized communication channels. This includes exhausting all available avenues, such as seeking clarification privately, before issuing any public statement that contains an unsubstantiated accusation about another DAO contributor.
Responsibility
-
Maintaining a culture of productive debate, integrity, and transparency requires a sense of collective responsibility. As entrusted leaders of the Arbitrum community, contributors should take responsibility in fostering and maintaining a culture that promotes the principles outlined herein.
-
Best practices of responsible contributors:
-
Participation: Contributors should make an effort to vote (even if they vote abstain) on all proposals.
-
Communication: Contributors should clearly communicate their rationale behind votes and discussions to the Arbitrum community.
-
Accountability: Contributors should maintain knowledge of all DAO initiatives and hold managing parties or elected representatives accountable.
-
Responsiveness: Contributors should use their best efforts to connect with the Arbitrum community and be accessible to answer questions or concerns.
-
Conflicts of Interest
Disclosure and Transparency Policy: If a conflict of interest exists, it is expected that the contributor discloses the nature and extent of the conflict in writing on the forum before voting. Proposal authors should disclose potential conflicts in the COI section of the recommended proposal template as outlined in the “How to Submit a DAO Proposal” by the Arbitrum Foundation. While it may not always be clear if an individual/entity stands to gain “directly” or “indirectly”, contributors and proposal authors are recommended to lean on the side of over-communication in the name of transparency.
Contributors who disclose a conflict of interest are not expected to alter their voting in any way. Self-voting is not currently banned outright for the reasons stated in previous DAO-wide discussions and based on sentiment gathered from a subsequent temperature check. However, a contributor who repeatedly fails to disclose a conflict of interest before voting risks being removed from their compensated governance role.
Enforcement & Appeal Process
All contributors are expected to abide by the Code of Conduct. Enforcement will take place through any program that financially compensates performing governance activities, such as rewards for voting/forum activity, or participation in DAO-approved programs where contributors are directly elected to facilitate the programs.
The program manager, council, or comparable facilitator in charge of the program is the one responsible for determining violations of the Code of Conduct and reserves the right to take what it deems as appropriate action, which may include but is not limited to, issuing a warning, suspension, or removal from the program. Any community member can raise a concern to the party responsible for managing the program with respect to a contributor failing to uphold the Code of Conduct. While the responsible party is required to acknowledge receipt of the concern and investigate the matter, the final determination and resulting course of action, which may include dismissing the concern, will depend on the underlying program’s structure.
If there are contradictions between the Code of Conduct and the specific program that is compensating a contributor, then the policies of the program shall take precedence. It is assumed that a program will define its own appeal process, but if it does not, then the conflict resolution section (next) will be the default appeal approach.
Conflict Resolution
Resolution of conflicts between contributors (and between contributors and programs) will be entrusted to the OpCo, which will act as a neutral mediator. It is recommended that contributors first seek to resolve conflict issues in good faith and privately. If the matter is unable to be resolved for any reason, or if the behavior is threatening or harassing, the matter can be raised to the OpCo. The OpCo will have the final say on the issue and reserves the right to determine if the issue should be brought to the attention of the community as a whole.
If you want to submit a request for support in resolving a conflict, please do so through this form.
Important Terms
Contributor: An individual or entity who willingly engages in Arbitrum governance and/or is compensated via a DAO-approved program.
DAO-approved program: A structured initiative that is funded and/or authorized by the Arbitrum DAO through a formal governance vote (Tally or Snapshot) and designed to achieve defined objectives. Examples include the Arbitrum Audit Program, the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program, and other comparable initiatives that receive DAO treasury funding or delegated authority.
Community Guidelines: The rules of engagement for the Arbitrum DAO forum as outlined and enforced by the Arbitrum Foundation.
Conflict of Interest (COI): A situation where a contributor, or any entity with which a contributor has a direct professional or financial relationship, stands to directly benefit from the outcome of a proposal or election.
Historical Context
The previous version of the Code of Conduct was voted for a trial period that was set to expire on January 31st, 2026. There was a stipulation that enabled the Arbitrum Foundation to extend the trial period by an additional 2 months. During that extension, the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy Advisors and OpCo worked on gathering feedback from delegates, considered and made some amendments, and put a new version of the Code of Conduct forward through the governance process. The vote passed successfully and as of April 2026, the OpCo has assumed the responsibility for stewarding the Code of Conduct of the ArbitrumDAO.
Past Versions
The above is the third amendment of the Code of Conduct and is now under the stewardship of the OpCo. You can find previous, now deprecated, versions in the links below.
Feedback and Review Process
With the Code of Conduct existing as living documents, the OpCo will serve as the steward of the documents and is responsible for maintaining them over time. Changes can be proposed and adopted through the following process:
Feedback and Observation. Any contributor may propose amendments by submitting feedback through a dedicated channel maintained by OpCo (for example a forum thread or dedicated google form). OpCo may also identify necessary changes based on its own observations of governance activity, enforcement gaps, or evolving DAO needs.
Drafting and Posting. When OpCo determines that a change is warranted, it will draft the proposed amendment and post it to the governance forum with a clear description of what is being changed and why.
Optimistic Approval. Proposed changes take effect automatically 14 days after being posted to the forum unless a combined 5% of DVP, calculated at the time of the forum post, raises objections through the appropriate governance forum amendment thread. This threshold, currently ~16.75M VP, is high enough to prevent trivial escalations from slowing down maintenance-type updates, but low enough that a coalition of small-medium sized delegates can trigger a vote on changes they consider substantive. The 14-day window is intended to give delegates sufficient time to review the proposed changes and OpCo will be responsible for monitoring objections and tallying the VP delegates.
- Escalation to an Offchain Vote. If sufficient VP raises an objection to the changes, the OpCo must then put the change to an offchain vote with a quorum set at the active non-constitutional quorum level.
Annual Review. In addition to the ongoing amendment process, OpCo will conduct a review of the Code of Conduct and DAO Procedures each January, soliciting community feedback and proposing any updates deemed necessary. This review serves as a regular checkpoint but does not preclude amendments at other times of the year.