# Update on OAT Elections’ Candidate Eligibility Evaluation phase **URL:** \ **Category:** Operation Company (OpCo)\ **Created:** [March 26, 2025, 4:18pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851 "2025-03-26T16:18:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Arbitrum](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/arbitrum/32/2693_2.png) [@Arbitrum](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Arbitrum)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 4:18pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/1 "2025-03-26T16:18:33Z")
As part of the ‘ **Candidate Eligibility Evaluation** ’ phase, the Arbitrum Foundation and Entropy Advisors have reviewed all applications, and here are the results of the evaluation phase. ## **Qualified applicants** - [A.J. Warner](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/9) - [Belmin Kalkan](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/13) - [Chris Cameron](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/8) - [EzR3al](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/2) - [Federico Daffina](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/14) - [Frisson](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/16) - [Jana Bertram](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/11) - [Cupojoseph](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/12) - [Marc Zeller](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/3) - [Pablo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/4) - [Patrick McCorry](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/6) - [Pedro Breuer](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/15) ## **Pending applicants** - [Spike Watanabe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/10) ## **Disqualified applicants** - [Valentin Prossliner](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/7) - A direct representative or full-time employee at the operations subDAO of dYdX, an Arbitrum network competitor. Applicants would have to fulfill [all prerequisites](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oversight-and-transparency-committee-oat-application-process-overview/28539#p-67473-prerequisites-to-joining-the-oat-5) to be categorized under the ‘Qualified applicants’ and cleared to run for the OAT elections. Applicants who are in the pending category will be automatically disqualified if they do not fulfill all prerequisites by March 26th, 23:59 UTC. The ‘ **Candidate Eligibility Evaluation** ’ phase will be closed later today (Wednesday, March 26th) at 23:59 UTC, and a snapshot for the elections will be initiated on Thursday, March 27th, following the conclusion of the **Candidate Introductions Call.** The call has been added to the governance calendar, and you can also access it directly [here](https://meet.google.com/vej-yxae-fwb). ## **Immediate Timelines:** - Candidate Eligibility Evaluation: March 24th - March 26th (23:59 UTC) - Candidate Introductions Call: March 27th (13:00 - 14:30 UTC) - OAT elections: March 27th (after 14:30 UTC) - April 3rd ---
**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2025, 12:29am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/2 "2025-03-27T00:29:27Z")
> [@Arbitrum](#): > > dYdX, an Arbitrum network competitor are we sure about this? the examples of “network competitors” in the prerequisites are > [@OpCo - Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Application Process Overview](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oversight-and-transparency-committee-oat-application-process-overview/28539/1): > > (e.g., Solana, Polygon, Optimism) I’m not sure if dYdX is in the same category as those network competitors examples. why was it decided that it is? ---
**Author:** ![Immutablelawyer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/immutablelawyer/32/13131_2.png) [@Immutablelawyer](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Immutablelawyer)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2025, 11:33am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/3 "2025-03-27T11:33:09Z")
_Disclaimer: I have worked with Valentin as a Supervisor of the dYdX Operations subDAO for the past 1.5 years+_ The disqualification here makes no sense to me here and I wholly agree with @paulofonseca (the fact that I agree w/Paulo should already be a tell on how blatantly incorrect this is) What makes dYdX, an app-chain solely restricted to perp-trading (and related products) similar to Arbitrum in any way shape or form that would cause a conflict of interest? dYdX is a Cosmos Chain, dYdX is a Layer-1, dYdX doesn’t have an ecosystem of projects on said L1, dYdX also isn’t aimed at competing with Arbitrum (and has never aimed to) in any way shape or form. This is a total misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest is. Where there is a conflict of interest, the interest that has caused the conflict should be specifically outlined. In this case, what is that interest exactly? dYdX is an L1 (not an L2), it is a Cosmos Chain (not on Ethereum), so where exactly is this conflict? ---
**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ezr3al/32/14760_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/EzR3aL)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2025, 12:33pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/4 "2025-03-27T12:33:46Z")
But wouldn’t you then also have to say Solana is no competitor as its a L1 and not L2 and its not EVM but its system with rust? Where do we as a DAO draw a line? ---
**Author:** ![Arbitrum](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/arbitrum/32/2693_2.png) [@Arbitrum](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Arbitrum)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2025, 2:22pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/5 "2025-03-27T14:22:08Z")
Valentin was disqualified for the following criteria: - _be a direct representative or full-time employee at network competitors_ We view dYdX as a competitor in a similar manner as Solana or Unichain, as it competes with DeFi applications on Arbitrum. Additionally, he is a **full time employee** to the operations subDAO of the dYdX ecosystem. Together, unfortunately, he satisfied the criteria. ---
**Author:** ![chamadao](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/chamadao/32/12746_2.png) [@chamadao](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chamadao)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2025, 9:47am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/6 "2025-03-28T09:47:21Z")
This is a good decision and good precedent. There are many qualified candidates that are not working directly for the operations DAO of another chain. ---
**Author:** ![RealVovochka](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/realvovochka/32/11985_2.png) [@RealVovochka](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RealVovochka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/7 "2025-03-31T13:31:24Z")
The issue here isn’t that dYdX is a competitor—it’s that a role on the OAT committee requires 10+ hours per week and he works full-time at dydx. And, as a small but telling detail, the way this person’s team handles free speech on their own forum (banning any dissenting opinions) and ignoring any requests to explain specific expenses disqualifies him from any transparency-related positions. Just my two cents ---
**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 1:46pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/8 "2025-03-31T13:46:17Z")
> [@RealVovochka](#): > > the way this person’s team handles free speech on their own forum (banning any dissenting opinions) and ignoring any requests to explain specific expenses you mean [Valentin Prossliner](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oat-applications-nominations/28555/7), aka, @backbone ? ---
**Author:** ![RealVovochka](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/realvovochka/32/11985_2.png) [@RealVovochka](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RealVovochka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 1:52pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/update-on-oat-elections-candidate-eligibility-evaluation-phase/28851/9 "2025-03-31T13:52:49Z")
Yes. I meant him. I explained the whole situation in my X account. Its not directly related to Arbitrum so not posting details here.