February Votes and Rationale
AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
We’re voting for Nova Fee Swap proposal on Snapshot as we believe this is a necessary and transparent action.
- Recovering Idle Funds: The Nova Fee Sweep addresses the accumulation of 1,885 ETH in the L1TimelockAlias, ensuring that these funds are moved to the DAO treasury. The Nova Fee Router proposal has improved the efficiency and transparency of this process.
- Supporting DAO Operations: These funds will contribute to DAO operations, with all transfers being conducted through on-chain, auditable smart contracts, ensuring transparency.
Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
We’re voting for the proposal on Tally as we believe the actions proposed will facilitate
- Treasury Diversification: Reduces reliance on ARB token by diversifying into stable, liquid, and yield-generating RWAs.
- Ecosystem Growth: Encourages RWA adoption on Arbitrum, increasing platform utility and attracting quality projects.
- Direct Control & Transparency: DAO directly selects assets, avoiding management fees and ensuring transparency via reports and a live dashboard.
- Endowment Potential: Builds a sustainable revenue stream for DAO expenses, with $162,500 in yield already generated.
- Proven Framework from STEP 1: Builds on the success and infrastructure of the first program, making implementation more efficient.
- Refined Application Process: Improved RFP process ensures higher-quality investments and filters out unsuitable products.
However, we also believe that the following points of concern should be considered and dealt with when moving forward with the proposal
- Timing of STEP 2.0: Full results from STEP 1 are not yet available, making it harder to assess its success before launching the second program.
- ARB Liquidation Strategy: Unclear liquidation approach raises concerns about selling ARB at low prices. Some call for a more detailed plan.
- Program Manager Compensation: Uncertainty about whether increased responsibilities justify higher compensation, which may need a separate proposal.
- Governance Risks: Reducing ARB holdings could make governance attacks easier and more cost-effective.
- Lack of Data Justifying Treasury Allocation: Some members request more analysis on the long-term benefits of allocating 1% of the treasury annually.
- Parallel Fund Transfer: Funds are allocated before finalizing selections, raising concerns about community alignment with committee decisions.
OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Voting AGAINST this proposal on Tally
Reasons:
- the reasons we cited before in our snapshot are still valid: cost, scope, lack of clarity, centralization.
- The original proposer Entropy has voted against this proposal, citing that they may be able to take on more of the roles Opco was intended for, and that AF is also getting more involved with Arbitrum DAO, reducing the need for an Opco.
- ARB Price is doing terribly, spending control is clearly needed.
Given these developments, and especially the fact that the original proposer of this - Entropy changed their position to be against this proposal, we are firmly still against this proposal.
We recognize the need for an Opco but it seems that role may be able to handled in a more streamlined way through the participation of Entropy and AF, and this proposal may not be the best way to handle it.
Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Voting ABSTAIN on this proposal
Rationale
- This proposal seems to be bypassing the initial specification of the Stylus Sprint. This could be warranted in extreme cases where the projects are very high value but as many of the projects are tooling and infra oriented, it’s hard for us to judge their value as we are not blockchain developers.
- The DeFi project on this list Ember seems quite high value from our view as DeFi analysts and traders, however it could also be funded through the Domain allocator program’s New protocols and Ideas track
Stylus is obviously a unique competitive advantage for Arbitrum and we do want to see it succeed but this proposal is very on the fence for us and we dont think we’d do it justice by trying to judge Blockchain tooling and infra projects without the ability to do so.
Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
After careful consideration, we’re voting against the proposal on Snapshot.
We think the proposal offers a solid vision for decentralized growth by empowering skilled builders to take on leadership roles, reducing reliance on expert groups, and promoting community-driven development. It also creates opportunities for direct interaction between makers and the broader ecosystem, which helps showcase Arbitrum’s live ecosystem in action. The initiative has good potential as a marketing tool, drawing attention to Arbitrum and helping early-stage projects grow.
But the actual demands for this kind of event remains unclear to us. We might need more concrete evidence or feedback from early-stage teams. Besides, the KPIs are too vague, with little focus on more measurable outcomes—like actual projects launched or liquidity growth. Additionally, the budget felt high given that the majority of the events are virtual. Lastly, the $67K budget also raised questions, especially with a relatively small group of 20 participants.
The Arbitrum Growth Circle has a lot of potential to build a self-sustaining support network within the ecosystem. However, there are still lingering questions about demand, KPIs, and return on investment. If the program can address these and demonstrate ability to deliver clear, measurable outcomes, it will likely be an excellent resource for Arbitrum’s growth.
Proposal: Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Day
incentivizing builders is a good thing to do, and doing it related to gas fees generated is a really interesting idea which seems to be working for Sonic.
That being said this proposal is a massive amount of ARB, at a time when ARB doesn’t have otherwise equal buying pressure to offset it.
If the proposal could be designed in a way where the fees generated offset the ARB distributed it would be a lot more sustainable.
Without a more sustainable economic design there’s no way we’d support this as ARB holders and delegates and I think many other holders and voters would say the same .
[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
We’re voting FOR this proposal on snapshot
Rationale -
Pectra is a hard fork on Ethereum promising major upgrades for usability and efficiency and this proposal also improves Stylus.
Supporting it is a no brainer as it brings benefits to Arbitrum, compabiltity with Ethereum, and also signals alignment with the Ethereum Roadmap and values.
Arbitrum Audit Program
For an incentive program, this is relatively well designed, but it’s hard to support it in currently as it is a large spend at a time when ARB price is not doing well and market conditions are not supportive.
Some comments:
-The success committee seems too dominated by big players, with little community input.
-There are no real penalties for missing KPIs, and the proposal lacks a clear breakdown of expected returns.
-The loyalty system is better than none, but could use more details on how to retain users long term.
- Spending 60M ARB in the current market might not be the best move, and a clearer budget breakdown would help.
We do like that this campaign takes a focused approach to boosting liquidity, lending, and trading while highlighting Arbitrum projects. It’s got built-in accountability with a success committee overseeing things, bi-weekly KPI check-ins, and the long-term engagement plan through the Jumper Loyalty Pass is better than most similar campaigns .
Plus, it tries to fix past issues by requiring fresh liquidity instead of recycling funds. Security is also a priority, with audits, Merkl’s non-custodial setup, and multi-sig protections.
To improve, the proposal should clarify the committee’s role, security details, and how protocols will be monitored. A solid marketing plan, including influencers and multilingual outreach, would also help.
And most importantly, this kind of incentive program which depends on ARB token price, would do well to be timed with more supportive market conditions.