Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO's Procedures

[Entropy]

Our team appreciates the thoughtful suggestions raised by contributors. First, the following changes have been incorporated into the Code of Conduct. Sub-section 7.4 has been updated to match SeedGov’s suggested wording for unsubstantiated accusations:

@SEEDGov

In our view, this clause could benefit from being expanded. We suggest the following wording:

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 — for example, seeking clarification privately — before issuing any public statement that contains an unsubstantiated accusation about another DAO contributor.

Clarifying language has been added to the member replacement process that the party responsible for selecting the individual/entity to fill the role, should also make a post on the forum updating the DAO of the change along with some basic information and rationale. Similar language has been added for the winding down of an initiative along with clarifying that anyone with adequate voting power (500k ARB) can post the cancellation vote to Snapshot.

@SEEDGov

Here we suggest including a clause that allows a relevant stakeholder (e.g. the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy, OpCo/OAT) to trigger an extension of the Code’s validity by one or two additional months, if necessary, without the necessity of going through a vote.

Lastly, we have also added language based on SeedGov’s suggestion that grants the Arbitrum Foundation the power to extend the trial period by up to two months through March 31st, 2026 in the event a new version has not yet been ratified.

Moving on to open topics & questions raised, we will first address the comments regarding the Responsible Voting Policy:

@Curia

However, we believe that the policy still holds cultural and ethical value even if it cannot be enforced strictly. Rather than removing it entirely, we suggest keeping it as a best-practice standard for election participants, especially those in compensated or elected roles. Maintaining the expectation of fair and transparent voting behavior, even informally, helps reinforce the integrity of elections.

@SEEDGov

Typically, the response to such loopholes is to amend the policy to address the gap (if possible) — not to remove the rule entirely because one edge case cannot be controlled.

We fear including the Responsible Voting policy in the Code of Conduct as a guiding principle, creates blurred expectations for participating candidates. It is entirely possible to encounter a scenario where an election is decided by a participating candidate fully self-voting and the runner up splitting their votes equally. In this event, we envision there being a great deal of confusion and controversy on if the policy should be applied. So while some participating candidates may choose to still follow the standard, such a decision should be free from informal expectations.

Our team is open to other suggestions, but closing this loop hole would likely require retroactively removing votes from LobbyFi or other vote buying platforms in shielded elections. From the discussion the DAO had in April on the topic, there seems to be strong consensus that such censoring would be embarking on a losing game of cat and mouse and push what are currently public/semi-transparent vote buying services to transform into being more opaque/private. Considering the original intentions of the policy, Entropy is not in favor of creating a system that incentivizes or leaves the door open for participating candidates to discreetly gain an advantage.

@Curia

In terms of the replacement itself, we suggest that the DAO consider adopting a runner-up mechanism as the first fallback. If the runner-up from the original election meets a reasonable minimum threshold of vote share, such as a percentage of the winning candidate’s total, they could automatically be offered the role.

In the current proposed system, the program manager, proposal author, or Arbitrum Foundation (if the responsibility falls to them) can choose the runner-up as the replacement. However, as we experienced with the ARDC v2, a replacement is not always necessary, and constraining the DAO into a runner-up mechanism could be less than ideal in certain circumstances. We prefer to entrust the responsible and generally highest-context party with the flexibility to make the right decision in any scenario.

@Curia

However, we note that many delegates continue to post their votes and reasoning in delegate threads during the voting period, which partially undermines the privacy benefits. To fully realize the intent of shielded voting, we recommend encouraging delegates to wait until the voting period has concluded before publishing their vote rationale.

If a contributor wishes to make their vote public, there is no means by which Entropy, the Arbitrum Foundation, or any other party can keep them from posting either on social media or the forum. Additionally, with shielded elections being limited to those only on Snapshot, all votes are editable, so if a delegate wishes to change their vote based on new public information that is disclosed during the election, they can do so. Taking both of these factors into account, it is our opinion that attempting to enforce such a policy will lead to more controversy than benefits.

Again, Entropy appreciates the thoughtful feedback and commentary from contributors. We look forward to discussing these topics further on the open community call.