# Uniswap-Arbitrum Delegate Program (UADP) Communication Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegate Statements\ **Tags:** delegation, delegate-statements\ **Created:** [October 28, 2023, 7:04pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225 "2023-10-28T19:04:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2025, 8:08am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/61 "2025-01-31T08:08:40Z")
### [Proposal for Piloting Enhancements and Strengthening the Sustainability of ArbitrumHub in the Year Ahead](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x959fb55d9887a68d3df6647e55010692777cc40e5c9b131dfdb3eedb8970dc6a) **Vote: For without retroactive** **Type: Snapshot** Although we have some hesitation around the monthly cost of this program, the endeavor is commendable, in particular since the site has already been built. Retroactive funding is tricky, and since the monthly expense is teetering towards the high-end, we don’t think it is justified. That being said, multiple parts of the website could use work. It’s understandable that they’re incomplete—but based on the headers and overall structure, we believe that the organization will be quite helpful for DAO insiders and external parties once populated with data. We understand that such an effort can be placed under an alternative program, like the OpCo. However, since the ArbHub team has already put the dominos in place here, we believe it’s justified for them to carry the mantle. We therefore voted For the proposal, excluding retro funding. ### [Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x6baef084d47cb0e0f5788449e0d6fafd6312a69f65b550d62d5b6772297b8695) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** A unified front is imperative for DAOs like Arbitrum, where a ton of simultaneous initiatives and incentives are wafting about. The OKR submission period, followed by the 21-day feedback space is a strong, organized way of consolidating various ideas and distilling them down to the most pertinent objectives. This exercise should also help clarify some of the muddied waters around the underlying sentiment behind what people actually think Arbitrum DAO should be focused on. There have been diverging efforts, from RWA to gaming, and Orbit to BOLD. Some of these initiatives are core to the advancement of Arbitrum from a technical and security standpoint like BOLD. These proposals have passed with flying colors. But areas like gaming will be interesting to see, if mentioned at all. An L2 like Arb can go in many directions, and defining the right paths in the short/medium term is vital. We therefore voted For this proposal. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2025, 12:12am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/62 "2025-02-05T00:12:33Z")
### [Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action](https://v1.snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xbd77b4faf99e06c7b4117e5dafaf5bb8f873bcffbb5c9d414a7ff745b6849f3a) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** This is a really straightforward vote.It would recover all of the historical fees for the DAO and make the fee collection going forward a lot simpler. Additionally, some quality of life improvements as well, easy yes. ### [Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/13323456481927947871314500108227684550647495448005726995657704713229313956489?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** Our two initial concerns with this proposal regarding its purview and the soundness regarding investing in more t-bills have been addressed and we are satisfied with the adjustments/responses. We are voting in line with our snapshot vote. ### [OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/41351298371775353090222506531903916823291804644712693824312064183457809617851?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** For a while, we have been fans of the OpCo. There are a couple of minor questions but overall, we are in favor of the vision and are voting in line with our snapshot vote. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2025, 7:35pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/63 "2025-02-28T19:35:47Z")
### [Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/47215139570733026393508270943324710379923699871435188004224569883226292800465?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** In line with our snapshot vote, we voted For this proposal due to the positive impact that the previous two seasons. Since Orbit is a vertical with paramount importance, its increased attention during season 3 is good to see. ### [Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x45513bb63946582432afa7213bcb2677e877dabbd5722210efd5eaf45797031c) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** Increasing a budget continually for programs, typically, is a net negative. Budgets are inherently meant to restrict the amount of funding allocated to given initiatives. But unlike most circumstances, we have decided to make an exception in this scenario due to the clear importance of Stylus on Arbitrum’s competitiveness. ### [Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xab1a7ff1a294882315f3beaa77fa0d4b2ec68633792046b941714108209ce737) **Vote: Against** **Type: Snapshot** We’d like to wait until the direction and results of the AVI program are formally assessed and completed. Until then, introducing this program feels a bit premature. Sure, there are aspects of this that have merit, and it’s a program that we would like to see put into place. But the specifics are not quite concrete, and the online nature of the program may not bring sufficient traction. This is partly why it seems the KPIs aren’t as clear/attractive. If the budget were to be reduced once AVI work is complete, we’re open to revisiting this initiative. ### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x7cc26491a070c74c1a4ec5a9892571d31eb690015936a35b52c0d3a97bd5497f) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** This was a straightforward Yes vote for us since the noted upgrades allow Arbitrum to keep up to date with innovations occuring on Ethereum. ### [Arbitrum Audit Program](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xebbcad364ae7f02797b9cd7f30c668907d479d4bb5ba7f5d775849822297a01d) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** Higher degrees of efficiency can be feasibly achieved if functions such as audits can be brought in-house under the purview of the Arbitrum Foundation/OCL. Although we still believe that there are critical initiatives and vendors that should be more formally elected by the DAO and externalized to 3rd party teams, we believe that this program works well if made more “centralized.” If the ADPC would be using the AF’s experience anyways, it only makes sense from a resource allocation perspective to allow for AF to have closer control over the auditing program. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 11:44pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/64 "2025-03-11T23:44:05Z")
### [TMC Recommendation](https://v1.snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc37793b67f39a6af9e9434003205b1d9b67dd6f75638329045257be823da4f18) **Vote: Deploy Both Strategies, Only Deploy Stable Strategy, Only Deploy ARB Strategy, Deploy Nothing, Abstain** **Type: Snapshot** We are in favor of both strategies at this current point in time and think it’s both worth exploring. When distinguishing the difference between the two, we are in preference of the Stable only strategy as from a DAO perspective, we think long term a more stable allocated treasury and strategy will play off better for longevity. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 5:20pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/65 "2025-03-20T17:20:33Z")
### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/14881197137069494959448952699217598923721993392617887469969318742509097999570?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** Voting in line with our snapshot votes, this is a necessary fundamental upgrade and we look forward to the new revenue generation mechanisms. ### [[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/41764616447638715300612914863093416410063619332654034338488569044333128121381?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** While there are some new concerns, we are still overall in support and think this could bring in a substantial amount of new users and governance participants. ### [[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/107606727309922720763027677505427395647796047780305505879344344641224024948240?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** After the feedback incorporation, we are in favor of the Audit Program passing and look forward to new projects building on top of Arbitrum! ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2025, 9:18pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/66 "2025-03-28T21:18:52Z")
### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdb22a77942eddfea9c826790ac03c3e54a34716c0a9bde846399cffe6046d256) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** There’s not much reason to vote against this proposal. Without the need for allocating any funds towards this initiative, it makes it an easy Yes vote. We are in favor of further integrating a strong protocol like Sky into the ecosystem so that USDC adoption on Arb does not fall behind relative to Ethereum mainnet and Base. Additionally, the process for these bridge and router proposals, like was the case with Rari, should be better streamlined by the DAO. The current process is unnecessarily cumbersome. ### [GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xf9fd09839ad10b0bb16c97a1cc4618270ed4145a38561da35ac4afe84516a107) **Vote: For, Deploy Capital** **Type: Snapshot** The three chosen strategies in this proposal make sense from a risk-adjusted standpoint. For an initial tranche of this program, using Lido, Aave, and Fluid are strong choices that steepen Arbitrum’s relationship with well-known and trusted Eth protocols. We respect the decision to not dive directly into more risky strategies like LRTs or use leverage which would require active management. Speaking of risk curves, we believe that allocations to arb-native protocols, apart from larger ones like maybe Camelot, was a good choice. The mandate of the Growth Management track was to allocate ETH in a straightforward and secure manner. Hence, utilizing larger protocols is prudent. Later, we can add arb-native protocols. Let’s get our base set first. ### [2025 Security Council Nominee Selection](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council) We allocated the entirety of our voting power to **Hari (CEO @ Spearbit / Cantina)**. Due to Hari’s background in working with large clients like Coinbase and Uniswap, along with his technical expertise, we believe he is a good candidate to move into the next round of elections. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2025, 10:27am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/67 "2025-04-11T10:27:36Z")
### [[Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x7689f957c8cc37e991c7bed0f1d3dd3f6024a921b0bfbae5c897a09ab45c538b) **Vote: Against** **Type: Snapshot** We are generally in support of exploring ways for teams to institute more off-chain and traditional methods for acquiring users. In hindsight, supplementing the STIP/LTIPP with a marketing budget would have made sense. It’s important for dapps to define their distribution channels, along with the funnel pipeline from a user seeing a paid advertisement of X, for example, and being converted to deposit in a lending protocol or liquidity pool—this is superior to simply disclosing one’s onchain distribution strategy. However, all that being said, we do not think that this initiative should go forward at this present time. This should be supplemented with a future version of an incentive program, except this time around, while also incorporating effective off-chain user acquisition strategies. ### [OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb422848b0f53f9077444b922d553618e331f9abe7539ae4566ff84364d0fbd3c) **Vote: Frisson, Marc Zeller, Chris Cameron (Paper): ⅓ each** **Type: Snapshot** Our voting power was evenly allocated across the above three candidates. Since we foresaw AJ and Patrick already getting elected, we wanted to distribute our voting power to candidates other than them to make our vote more impactful. Having worked with Frisson in the past on multiple projects, and seeing him contribute to Arbitrum for a handful of years now, gave us confidence in electing him. Then, to balance the scales, we selected Paper and Marc as the other two candidates due to both of their candid and transparent approaches to DAO management. We respect their opinions and openness to call out issues when they arise. ### [TMC Stablecoin Recommendation](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xdd38e103e337b9e02a9d9ac73c2587db5be6cfb46506e13c0e897f7331895cf4) **Vote: YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy** **Type: Snapshot** Having been proponents of a strong stablecoin strategy from the start, we are keeping in line with that perspective, voting in favor of this proposal. Risk seems to have been addressed inherently within the strategies themselves, with decent yield attached to the total 15M ARB bucket, along with increased diversification across the select three vendors. Kpk, Avantagrade, and Gauntlet are all teams we’ve collaborated with before and have high confidence in their ability to deliver on their promises. The only downside here, of course, is that ARB needs to be sold. ### [TMC ARB Recommendation](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x9d13c56f911796a578812959f775092b3644901be17738a2d41c516d8a8f2e9b) **Vote: Abstain** **Type: Snapshot** Although we voted in favor of the stablecoin strategy, we opted to abstain on the ARB recommendation. There are benefits to strategies like covered calls, and we do like Myso generally speaking. However, right now, from a timing perspective, we are more comfortable with simply using a more vanilla stablecoin strategy and then revisiting the ARB strategies recommended in this proposal more towards a market reversal. We don’t think it’s the best idea to sell/earn yield on this ARB in this unpredictable environment. Our encouragement would be to look for alternative strategies in the meantime, perhaps those that are also cheaper in terms of fees. Again, we are happy to revisit this structure during different market conditions, sticking just to the stable strategy for now. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 3:25pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/68 "2025-04-14T15:25:28Z")
**[2025 Security Council Elections](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council)** We allocated our voting power to Certora and Michael Lewellin. We have worked extensively and seen great output from both in the past and believe they will continue to do a great job going into the future. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2025, 9:06am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/69 "2025-05-06T09:06:12Z")
### [Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations](https://v1.snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd67d17db3bd230b163ce1f791d8712812446bced14ef2de875fd01ab3e2be3d6) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** The committee’s preferred allocations are understandable and we think the logic is valid. Voting to approve their recommendations. ### [[Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program](https://v1.snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xbb7500b713ccf4eff3f2dcb61e3c9d8db5ed5628a4b2f891656a0c0de98907bd) **Vote: Yes to Both** **Type: Snapshot** Topping up the HCP and Leftover funds to the TMX is understandable and we think both should occur. This follows the spirit of the prior approved proposals and we believe the asl is very reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 6:22am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/70 "2025-05-15T06:22:21Z")
### [The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/28485587559812799913134094629469849411398475232393607771326861344548198896843?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** Implementing the misuse bounty setup is a beneficial move to bolster the integrity of the Arbitrum DAO’s grant allocations. By incentivizing the community to participate in oversight, it can help reduce profligate spending and utilization of funds, especially those that may be hard to track. With a DAO as large as Arbitrum, it’s certainly difficult to keep a close eye on everything that’s happening. Adding an incentive for folks to flag issues is therefore helpful. ### [DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x0b62de171fbff7a81833f9ebb44b9747189264d7a2cf95e3446223b1c413d2b0) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** The incentive freeze period has lasted long enough in our opinion. Although ARB price has since not recovered, we believe that it’s important to explore effective and prudent means by which activity persists and even increases on Arbitrum. The more goal-specific approach that Entropy laid out makes sense to us. This is more akin to the grant programs that Optimism gives out, where specific, yet wide enough, incentive programs are prescribed to a select group of grant recipients. We must also disclose that our team represents Uniswap DAO and are therefore compelled to vote in favor of this proposal, as it will allow us to facilitate further volume on Uniswap v4 on Arbitrum. This relationship, we believe, will be symbiotic for both Uniswap and Arb as it will increase the proliferation of hooks on the L2. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x2d4089d72617eb137d6ee7ab9ae9efbe3cd1e0fcff48df24b926ce6259b734d3) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** We supported this proposal, albeit with a degree of reluctance. Quorum is something that ideally should not be tampered with much. The reason for increased voting difficulty based on higher votable supply is a feature—not a bug. Dynamic quorums and treasury delegations are band aid solutions. However, the quorum margin erosion over the past couple of months has been so drastic that we feel compelled to see the existing quorum reduced for the sake of being able to pass important proposals. Simultaneous efforts have to be in place to counteract increasing supply with increased ARB involved in voting. We should optimize for the long-term. ### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/13108804573775967668959825241666341617107666532012387058509418598838035461528?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** We voted in favor of this proposal as it allow Arbitrum One and Nova to keep up to date in concert with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2025, 10:53pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/71 "2025-06-30T22:53:24Z")
### [Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x9ea3f5ef5b6c838ffc24430bb927baa13bf25dcf5f444358e89f0958bb41a5e7) Vote: Reduce delegation to 100k Type: Snapshot Although the direction of the EH project has shifted more prominently towards agentic governance as opposed to purely enabling individuals to band together and attain representation on a larger, more impactful scale, we are in support of seeing the agentic vision play out. Reduction of the total delegation amount to 100k enables further experimentation—plus we believe the EH team has attained strong enough goodwill on Arbitrum over the past year. ### [Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1de2707ab4cf792721544a8f82eee98535c16ce437ba2ac95a78c85c20b6d8b0) Vote: Wind down the MSS Type: Snapshot Allowing the MSS to be deprecated due to the existing issues is in our opinion a fair step. The AF is likely the best entity to take on this role for the time being, however, measures regarding transparency and proper disclosure should be top of mind for the AF. Since the AF is already involved in aspects like compliance checks for various payment programs, they should easily be able to adopt the MSS responsibilities. And in the future, a transition should be made for this system to run under the jurisdiction of the OpCo. ### [Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xfd373c58adbb013a05c778b71ccffb19e5bbefb8a100232f67eced33c58e22f7) Vote: For Type: Snapshot Mountain Protocol unwinding makes the redemption of these funds obviously necessary. Since the capital that was allotted to USDM was already a part of the STEP program, we are in favor of rolling over the capital to STEP 2. ### [Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x65b2b835f03bc18aa401b88702145e6b7686e8d7ddddfd956837251f8a7a7da1) Vote: For Type: Snapshot This updated purview for the OpCo in our opinion is a fair extension—regardless of the potential overreach in the responsibilities, as mentioned by many delegates. Our perspective is that the OpCo will function with maximal efficiency if it is given a strong enough degree of flexibility while not undermining transparency. Discretionary spending and authorization to enter into agreements with vendors is well and good—as long as these matters are disclosed in a timely and justified manner. Constraints are also important to prevent excessive operational flexibility. ### [Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x38663c36b26252acff6c6ca43663167858f51f960235dc0441bd2ad4a8f66fb1) Vote: Abstain Type: Snapshot The initial post was asking for far too much for this integration, so, purely from a cost perspective, we were intending to vote Against this proposal. However, by the Snapshot phase, the cost was reduced to $60k. At this stage, because the costs aren’t too cumbersome, and the proposal seems to have a degree of merit in making the forums more robust, we are okay with the proposal passing. However, since the grant doesn’t present a surefire need for the DAO, we defer to an abstain vote. ### [DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/13050485773425645466153415888358064378805606653363056526521393182333458879398?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) Vote: For Type: Onchain Like in the Snapshot phase, we voted in favor of this proposal. There are too many incentive proposals that have failed to deliver long-term value to the DAO. Notably, STEP and LTIPP had some successes, but they could have been run more effectively. Namely, it’s very hard to determine whether or not a program has done well if the measures of success are difficult to surmise. Isolation of the different seasons to specific key areas of concern, like loop strategies or depth on xyz lending markets, makes assessing the efficacy of a program far easier. A large-scale incentive program introduced far too many confounding variables, which can be significantly controlled for if incentives are tranched over time and over disparate sectors. ### [Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xfab795313df4ef1023c5f7f9027857637cc3841d62dc0b54796fbfa5f8096919) Vote: For Type: Snapshot It seemed inevitable that a consolidation effort would eventually take place. Aggregation of the STEP, TMV, and GMC makes logistical sense. The OAT oversight aspect for the executing bodies is also an important inclusion. We are in support of reduced fragmentation and overhead—and are therefore in favor of this shift. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xeb044e3bdeba71e74dea02abeab4c33fe4bf5ab9def50082863702d5e2112b93) Vote: For Type: Snapshot Nova has solely become a cost sink for the AF. There was a spike in activity for Nova a couple of years ago when the Reddit team launched their rewards program on Nova since it was fast and cheap. But now, with the presence of new innovations like Orbit chains, the value proposition of a technology like Nova has since diminished. We are therefore in favor of removing the subsidies for Nova. ### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/71020107401388505040510993373598301285550678565865201408741893567942851985019?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) Vote: For Type: Onchain Since the Offchain Labs team is willing to collaborate with the Sky folks on implementation of this proposal, we are in favor of it. Ideally, proposals like this, and the previous Rari proposal, should not have to pass through an entire onchain vote—but we are sympathetic about the restrictive requirements around custom gateway contract inclusions. In a different forum post, we outlined potentially new approach that would make this process more seamless: - 1. Projects submit their custom gateway and L2 token contracts to OCL for a technical review to confirm compatibility with the Generic Custom Gateway Router, bridge security standards, etc. Community feedback on Sky’s proposal emphasized that delegates preferred that OCL was consulted as opposed to consulting the whole DAO, with most delegates having minimal to no key feedback on the proposal. - 1. Projects must attain an audit (like RARI was reviewed by OpenZeppelin and Sky by ChainSecurity) for their custom gateway and L2 token contracts, verifying security and compliance with Arbitrum’s bridge standards. - 1. After pre-validation by OCL and auditors, the project team can post a proposal with the stated stamps of approval so that delegates have an easier time conducting a review. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/94423886836435773843507976898262621297544156552971145658873213763398017341229?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) Vote: For Type: Onchain Ideally, quorum reductions do not occur simply because security is of paramount importance. A moving target when it comes to such an important parameter is unideal. However, after revising much of the ARDC data, it’s clear that issues around quorum margin are increasing especially with increases in supply. We are therefore—albeit reluctantly—in favor of this proposal. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2025, 5:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/72 "2025-07-08T17:13:23Z")
### [Audit Committee Technical Expert Elections](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x131574819442cb6da293795ee9faeec4754a5af664b535b654b3d9d3d53f47e1) Vote: Gustavo Type: Snapshot After considering the options, we felt Gustavo was the most qualified candidate. This was a close decision. ### [Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd7529f75df21183d0eb9bce0cc828d56e9a100f449857c16177d98db6497cc16) Vote: For Type: Snapshot We are supportive of this proposal as it aligns a responsible allocation of resources within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The outlined goals present a clear path to fostering innovation, increasing on-chain activity, and strengthening Arbitrum’s position as a leading L2. We appreciate the transparency and thoughtful design behind this proposal and believe it will drive meaningful long-term impact. ### [Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x765b297702f21736e7b52c23d781dc76968519fef9c7b1ca1f924d167b2a6899) Vote: Don’t Extend Type: Snapshot We are voting NO on the proposed extension of the ARDC as the ARDC has outlined its objectives and activities, the measurable outcomes from its initial phase remain limited. There is insufficient evidence that the work produced has led to much actionable insights, protocol improvements, or tangible value for the Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize the contributions of the ARDC members to date but believe this proposal requires more demonstrated value, clearer accountability, and stronger alignment with community priorities before additional funding is warranted. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2025, 3:48am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/73 "2025-07-31T03:48:50Z")
### [Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Year 2 and Year 3](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x320cd2a99a0544184c06e1bd305aab1fc226ab0b498e077bc857a07045194f43) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** Since Entropy has demonstrated their caliber during their initial engagement with Arb DAO, we see their renewal as an overall positive. Yes, it is a bit costly, but we struggle to see other teams who have as much subject matter understanding of the DAO. A multi-team committee may not be the best idea either since that increases the degree of coordination needed to facilitate the Entropy mandates. As the OpCo is being finalized, Entropy will be a strong facilitator. We also appreciate the funding terms, with vesting clauses and KPI-based milestones. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Update the Upgrade Executors](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xc08147e229fa642ee7da2e5180f225122b8c517024902f21cdcd02b376179b8d) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** This is a straightforward Yes on our end. The executeCall function helps upgrade the execution process. ### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x586de5bf366820c4369c041b0bbad2254d78fafe1dcc1528c1ed661bb4dfb671) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** After supporting similar proposals with Sky and RARI, we are also voting in favor of this proposal. We’ve previously mentioned interest in seeing the DAO follow a more seamless process for these token registrations. L2Beat recently posted a proposal along this vein that we are supportive of. Coordination with OCL and AF for these initiatives will be important. ### [Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO’s Procedures](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd3d164905fee7dfd8516db6150a97f7f91cf6f9377f614fa6a82333c4fb20546) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** After the trial run of the code of conduct procedures, the mentioned alterations based on anecdotal evidence are good to see. We had mixed feelings around the removal of the Responsible Voting Policy, however. The presence of lobbying services adds complexity to this matter, for sure. However, as a simple ethical standard, a type of responsible voting directive should still be in place. Enforcement is difficult, but it could be done on the DIP front, where folks who detach themselves from a baseline level of principles are omitted from the DIP. Apart from that, disclosures are just part of basic decorum. ### [[Constitutional] AIP: Disable Legacy Tether Bridge](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xd5a66f784523841511f7ffec4171b9c14404fdbf7c205086312084d19c95c193) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** Tether has effectively pushed for the adoption of USDT0, and so, the presence of the legacy USDT bridge doesn’t make much sense. We’ve seen concerns around the fact that the new omni-chain token is based on the LayerZero OFT standard. It doesn’t really seem to matter if Arb DAO thinks the OFT token is reliable or safe—that’s besides the point. It’s more-so a matter of removing the now irrelevant USDT bridge, which makes sense as there’s practically no upside to keep it. ### [Consolidate Idle USDC to the ATMC’s Stablecoin Balance](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x95a85f5d3d82215793ba9771ff06610d2ba9e2eaf58cdba904d7a9cb5b8bdc94) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** Latent funds utilized more productively is a favorable direction to take. Simply letting the funds rest elsewhere is imprudent, and the opportunity cost should be analyzed. That being said, it should be more clear how the DAO utilizes leftover budgets or deprecated committee capital. It’s disorganized to make these decisions purely on an ad hoc basis. ### [Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working with the Arbitrum DAO, Y2-Y3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/37638751032596392177176596241110468090299645534448966767963399982622616318705?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** As per our support of the Entropy team in the Snapshot phase, we are voting in favor of this proposal onchain as well. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2025, 4:58pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/74 "2025-08-05T16:58:24Z")
### [[Non-Constitutional] - Updates to the DIP, The Complete 1.7 Version](https://v1.snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x008f190725018c3db0e6464bf31d44f09a4d7773fd1486dff0c52c27b8aba289) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** In favor of these amendments to the DIP. Over the last few months, we’ve seen more and more delegates drop out and be less active as the requirements were increasingly difficult to qualify for. This should hopefully reverse this recent trend, and the different tiers and scores are more reasonable. ### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Register $BORING in the Arbitrum generic-custom gateway](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/97685288731263391833044854304895851471157040105038894699042975271050068874277?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** As per our support of this vote in the Snapshot phase, we are voting in favor of this proposal onchain as well. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 5:51pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/75 "2025-08-27T17:51:26Z")
### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] Remove Cost Cap, Update Executors, Disable Legacy USDT Bridge](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/51852039695020109312343918128899814224888993575448130385109956762385891284115?govId=eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9) **Vote: For** **Type: Onchain** Firstly, combining the three proposals that each went through their individual Snapshots is a strong operational step due to the existing issues around reaching quorum. This is especially the case with Constitutional votes. We voted in favor of all of these proposals at the offchain level and are therefore compelled to vote in favor of this aggregated vote. - Cost cap reduction for Nova makes sense largely due to the lackluster activity on the platform and the corresponding expense cuts for the AF. - Upgrading executors makes operational sense; no qualms there. - Continuity of the customary tether bridge does not make sense if the Tether team itself is moving to USDT0 and if liquidity is now concentrated in the latter token. ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2025, 2:25am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/76 "2025-08-30T02:25:46Z")
### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 50 Dia](https://v1.snapshot.box/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x33754da4006d0ef38666ec5d5e85fd0966a891a594ab9dc21f23beedea2d330b) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** We support ArbOS 50 Dia because it keeps Arbitrum One and Nova aligned with Ethereum’s upcoming Fusaka upgrade while introducing important improvements to security, stability, and developer usability. The inclusion of cryptographic upgrades (such as secp256r1 precompile and MODEXP input bounds) ensures compatibility with Ethereum standards and reduces the risk of consensus issues. At the same time, the transaction gas cap promotes fairer blockspace usage, making the network more resilient during periods of high demand. ---
**Author:** ![Olivia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Olivia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Olivia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2025, 4:12am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/77 "2025-08-30T04:12:21Z")
will you be publishing your voting rationale before votes are finalized, or only after the decisions are made? Where should the community follow along for updates?” ---
**Author:** ![juanbug](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanbug/32/11891_2.png) [@juanbug](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/juanbug)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2025, 2:31pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/78 "2025-08-30T14:31:08Z")
This thread will be where we announce our rationale and updates as votes are being decided. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2025, 8:36pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/79 "2025-09-10T20:36:30Z")
### [Revert the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) to Version 1.5](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb1a39a0b7543e03cbb7aca0213448f4fbed4cbf1157fcb1b2458540fb452bc73) **Vote: Order from top to bottom—Abstain, Keep current, Revert, Sunset** **Type: Snapshot** We are erring on the side of Abstain for this vote, while putting sunsetting the program towards last preference, because the presence of some type of DIP is better than none. Our team voted in favor of the v1.7 vote because as it currently stands, incentivizing voting weight does make sense. But we do recognize that this, terminally, is imperfect. There should be efforts to balance the weight of the DIP given to large voters and also to smaller members of the community who show their contribution through active ideation and discussion. If the program were to revert or stay the same, we would not have a significant preference towards either, but are just a bit more inclined towards 1.7—for the time being. Again, it’s important to look at where the DAO stands from a standpoint of what activities are most vital to incentivize. ### [[CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb41324ddcc115d08149b192e0b8ae4cfad0ef39cecb5663ea63d8a460d2cb3cc) **Vote: Voted For all options, except for “Allow members to bypass nominee”** **Type: Snapshot** Reduce Qualification Threshold: In our opinion, a smaller amount of votable ARB should not be a disqualifying criterion. Reducing this parameter from 0.2% to 0.1% makes sense. Candidate and Member Key Rotations: Very reasonable justifications pop up that necessitate key rotation. This should not be a blocker, especially for already existing members. Having this flexibility in our opinion increases security, given effective procedural oversight. Increased Cohort Duration: This makes sense since the members of council don’t have to politic back and forth during shorter spans of time. It is much easier to ensure the job-to-done is primarily focused on as opposed to trying and getting elected with high frequency. Bypassing Nominee: Especially if longer terms are in place, we believe that competition among applicants should start from a level playing field. ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2025, 4:27am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225/80 "2025-09-25T04:27:09Z")
### [Sept 2025 Security Council Nominee Selection](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/council/security-council/election/4/round-1) **Vote: ⅓ to each Gauntlet, Cyfrin, Immunefi** **Type: Security Council Election on Tally** We divided our voting power into thirds among the above three candidates. Our team has in some capacity or another, across a handful of different protocols, worked with each of the providers. All three of the teams have a strong reputation in the space, and we are confident that they’ll make for great additions to the next cycle of voting in this security council election. Each of the representatives has the technical capabilities required for admission, and all of them have a track record and brand to uphold, thereby incentivizing them to participate with care. ### [Transfer 8,500 ETH from the Treasury to ATMC’s ETH Treasury Strategies](https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x15d7bef4adb076e13fbbc0941543eb93cff9512e2c83ada0498ef1df290c67a5) **Vote: For** **Type: Snapshot** Although there are aspects around the implementation component of this proposal that we would like to see better fleshed out, we are fine with supporting the utilization of these funds for earning additional return and supporting the growth of DRIP. We hope that a more robust communication plan and strategy materializes around this, though. If these aspects are better detailed, it makes more sense to enact a procedure that flows income for the DAO into treasury strategies seamlessly. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225.md?page=3) [Next page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/uniswap-arbitrum-delegate-program-uadp-communication-thread/19225.md?page=5)