Zeptimus.eth
About me: Transparency and accountability advocate. A passionate representative focused on decentralized governance.
Diving into Arbitrum because traditional governance is broke and I believe I can have a positive impact here. I’m excited to be part of a system that pushes our boundaries, prioritizes community agency, and rewards genuine problem-solving.
Been deep in Web3, working on how we fund and support public goods. I’d love to make building public goods as competitive and exciting as any startup hustle.
I love healthy and fair competition and having clear rules is necessary to keep each other accountable. Thats why im so fired up about creating unbiased governance with AI agents.
We need to work together and keep AI open source. If we don’t, we’re basically selling our future to big tech.
When I’m not breaking down DAO structures, I’m either taking hits in Muay Thai, playing calisthenics or finding my flow on a snowboard.
1 Like
[Tally] Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
I’m voting for this one. RWA is trending, and funny enough, just today ETH dropped to $2,170 on Binance, and MANTRA, the top RWA coin, is up 14% while all the alts dropped hard as well. I’m citing this as an argument to support the proposal. I also believe that with boomers joining the party, this will keep going up.
Why would I hold these papers with all those legal bureaucracies just to say a house is mine? I believe RWA is a needed tech for the cryptoanarchist dream I believe we are moving towards.
I don’t like the idea of selling ARB, especially without a plan to buy back, but voting yes because I believe it’s good to capture this value.
OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
I voted NO because I believe DAOs should operate with the minimum structure necessary. We need to stay as decentralized as possible, allowing initiatives to grow organically and enabling the community to swarm toward the ultimate goal of increasing ARB’s value by showing growth within our ecosystem.
Additionally, while not the sole reason for my vote, I’d like to point out that the proposal lacks clear execution details, such as how OpCo will be structured, how leadership will be chosen, and what mechanisms will ensure alignment with DAO governance.
[Snapshot] Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
I’m voting FOR this proposal. It make sense to send the ETH where it can be managed. Im also supportive of comments of using the eth to get yield .
[Tally] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
Questbook has been doing a good job, it’s a great place for grantees to get onboarded on Arbitrum. The budget it’s growing but their asking is reasonable, they are allocating more funds to. Their ask is below 10% which is quite competitive in the space, lets see it grow and looking forward to season 3 results.
[Snapshot] Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
I like how transparent this request is - we can see exactly which projects would get funded and why. This sets a good precedent for how to ask for additional funding: show the community specific high-value projects that couldn’t make the initial cut.
I disagree with the sentiment to open this for new applications. We had a successful process, these are the overflow projects that scored high but couldn’t get funded due to budget constraints. Let’s keep it focused on these specific projects rather than opening a new funding round. After seeing the results of the project as a whole we can re-evaluate it.
Comments made before voting
TLDR: I like the direction of where the proposal is coming from. I believe the end goal of the DAO should be to bring ARB price up. Delegates’ compensation should be vested, and there’s no need for 50k or 500k limitation - every ARB counts!
Hello, my name is Zeptimus, and I thought about joining the program right after seeing @thedevanshmehta tweet. Being compensated for sharing my insights here is what allows me to spend time on Arbitrum forums.
First of all, thanks for carrying the flag on t…
Thanks for the detailed proposal. The data showing that 0% of protocols know their LTV and only 21% know their CAC is exactly whats wrong with this space. Projects are just burning money without tracking results.
I like the KPI approach and specially the idea that if you only achieve 60% of KPIs you only get 60% of funding. Thats some skin in the game right there!
But instead of spreading resources thin, why not identify the few projects that could actually bring NEW users to Arbitrum? Im talk…
Good initiative and I’ve got some suggestions about the token mechanics.
Converting 30M ARB to USD immediately is not the play here coz it creates unnecessary sell pressure. Instead, we should:
Keep the funds in ARB and only convert when actually paying for audits
Let auditors choose to receive payment in ARB if they want (maybe even incentivize it)
If we’re bullish on Arbitrum’s (which this proposal shows we are), then keeping funds in ARB aligns everyone’s incentives. Plus, if ARB price go…
Interesting proposal but I’ve got mixed feelings on this one.
Budget “TBD” is a red flag and KPIs are too soft. Where’s the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
Projects that actually deploy post-sessions
TVL growth from participants
Real market maker relationships formed
The scaling OCL expertise part makes sense but let’s cut the fluff. $50k should have clear allocation upfront and focus on measurable results, not just feel-good workshops.
Btw love @blockworksresearch suggestion about …
The ARB payment switch and moving to bi-annual reporting make sense - aligns incentives better and reduces operational overhead.
BUT - can’t support the compensation increase just coz other DAOs are paying more. That’s the kind of thinking that leads to bloated governance. Each role should be compensated based on its actual value/impact.
We need clear performance metrics that tie compensation to ecosystem growth results. What actual outcomes justify this 2.66x increase?
I’d support the ARB pa…
There’s a huge opportunity for Arbitrum here. Moving fast with an agile approach makes sense.
Potential projects I’d be really exited about:
AI agents with the end goal of buying ARB, similar to how a16z trades memes with its own token—but instead, focusing on real investments to ultimately buy back ARB.
Start using AI to assess proposals and run a pilot—I want to see the potential of unbiased governance.
A budget of 500K or any amount can’t be properly evaluated at this stage, as there are …
It looks interesting, were can i learn about $CASH tokenomics?
[imagen]
I mean this, how am i suppose to say thats a good investment or not with that information?
Edit: And TBD KPI
LFG! I recently joined DIP, and this will be helpful. Looking forward to it
Thanks for the proposal. While I’m curious about how this would impact governance dynamics, dropping 500M ARB seems too aggressive right now - especially since we hit ATL just 10 days ago as Argonaut pointed out.
I align with Tekr0x about wanting to see more innovative solutions rather than copying other L2s’ retro funding.
Would you be open to exploring more targeted approaches that don’t require such a large token distribution?
Like @EzR3aL I dont have technical background but from what im reading we’re leveling up our gear to stay aligned with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade. Makes sense, being Ethereum aligned is key for Arbitrum’s growth and token value.
I trust the Arbitrum devs on this one, they’ve been solid on previous upgrades. I’m also curious to read more from technical folks.
I love how the marketing (MAGA) is being play, I see some solid points but also some concerns:
Good stuff:
The 2-week iteration cycles + oversight committee is based. Way better than STIP/LTIPP where protocols got funds directly with barely any accountability
Clear KPIs tied to actual market impact
The double step of bridge + deposit requirement for incentives is smart to avoid internal recycling of funds
But here’s what id like us to discuss more:
Make sure funds are safu and dive deep on
…
Nice topic to discuss
Removing ABSTAIN from quorum count is a bad idea and goes against voting principles. Abstain is there for a reason - when you don’t count it toward quorum, you’re essentially making proposals harder to pass.
Think about it: if we’re 4 friends and quorum is 3, 2 vote for, 1 against, and 1 abstains - this is clearly a proposal that should pass. The person abstaining is signaling they don’t have a strong opinion and want to go with the majority.
LobbyFi having power isn’t s…
Then we should consider raising the quorum. There is no point in making “abstain” a useless button.
In that case, you would have 50% quorum, with 33% voting for and 66% voting against and the proposal would not pass. The role of abstaining is to signal that you want others to decide while still contributing to the quorum, ensuring it is not a blocker. If the majority votes against, the proposal won’t pass. Quorum is only relevant for yes votes.
I didn’t vote on this one since it happened before I got onboarded, but I’m excited to see Arbitrum holding some RWA and hoping for the bull. I’m not happy with the ARB selling, though—I still see this as kind of like what Saylor is doing with BTC. LFG!
That’s not how it works. When you vote against, you don’t contribute to the quorum. Only “yes” and “abstain” votes count toward the quorum.
Abstaining = I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I will not block the decision the community makes.
If a proposal is failing, abstaining will not make it pass. Abstaining does not add weight to “yes” votes.
[image]
Those are easy words to say behind a screen
Apologies for the dump, I’m slowly understanding the mechanics of how this works. In my defense, I didn’t have an onboarding. From now on, every proposal will have one comment, and I will add the comments, snapshot signaling, and tally vote in that one comment to make it easier to follow. Thank you.
[Non-Constitutional] Service Provider Utilisation Framework
Comment before post
Thanks for putting this framework together - it’s clear you’ve put thought into creating structure around service provider relationships.
That said, I have some concerns about the approach. The oversight committee structure (7 members) seems to add an unnecessary layer between service providers and tokenholders. From my experience in governance, simpler structures tend to be more effective and resistant to bureaucratic capture.
The KPI framework is definitely a step in the right direction. Per…
TMC Proposals Snapshot
TMC Proposed Allocations V2 – Stablecoin Strategy
I was not supportive of the stablecoin strategy because of the bad timing for selling, but if the foundation will sell the ARB regardless, we better get those stables to work. Appreciate the good work on managing the treasury. Im voting Yes on snapshot
TMC Proposed Allocations V2 – ARB Strategy
I’ll be voting Abstain on the ARB strategy. I’m supportive of both candidates to do a good job, but @threesigmaxyz recommending to vote no makes me be more cautious. I believe we can reconsider it and come again in 3 months. I also believe the market will be way different in 3 months from now, but that’s pure speculation.
OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
Snapshot
All candidates bring valuable perspectives, and I appreciate their willingness to contribute. After reviewing, I’ll be voting for Patrick, Christopher, and Jana, as they stand out in my view.
Patrick McCorry - Been in the DAO since day 1, knows all the broken processes from the inside.
Christopher Cameron (PaperImperium) - MakerDAO veteran who’s seen governance entities go off the rails before, and will make sure OPCO stays focused and doesn’t overstep its mandate
Jana Bertram - Strong operati…
[Non-Constitutional] Let’s get our huddles (aka. video calls) in order
Feedback
I like the idea of playing with it.
We don’t need it to be perfect - we need to start using what we already have. Even if the current tools aren’t ideal, real usage will only make it better.
I believe in using Arb tech now and improving it through actual user testing and feedback. Let’s implement what we have, collect real-time user data, and iterate quickly. This approach builds better tools and strengthens our ecosystem simultaneously.
[Non-constitutional][RFC] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
Feedback
Thanks for the detailed proposal. The data showing that 0% of protocols know their LTV and only 21% know their CAC is exactly whats wrong with this space. Projects are just burning money without tracking results.
I like the KPI approach and specially the idea that if you only achieve 60% of KPIs you only get 60% of funding. Thats some skin in the game right there!
But instead of spreading resources thin, why not identify the few projects that could actually bring NEW users to Arbitrum? Im talk…
Snapshot
I vote against on this proposal. I would like it to be a smaller experiment using existing grant programs in Arbitrum first. I’m also hesitant to vote in favor until we first align with the mission and vision of Arbitrum. When that is clear, we will have an easier road to make decisions.
There is this page where we can see all the grants of Arbitrum: Arbitrum — Grants . I believe the Arbitrum Foundation Grant Program coming soon is the best fit for this type of proposal.
Great job on putting this proposal together! I appreciate the thought and effort you’ve put into aligning it with Arbitrum’s goals. In my view, we need a clearer roadmap to determine what to prioritize first. I also prefer to see a smaller pilot first and, if successful, scale it bigger.
Proposal: enable the new TogetherCrew functionality: Free* summarizer and Q&A for delegates telegram chat
Feedback
I fully support the idea of making this type of information available.
I belive in information being accessible. I don’t like the idea of people opting out, and I’m also curious how it can be demonstrated that we didn’t take information from someone in particular. You can tell the bot not to mention that person, but their knowledge and their lessons will still be accessible - and they should be (unless you truly erase the data, witch isnt fun).
I’m personally asking for a grant on Questbook. A…
March 2025 Member Election Phase
Tally
I’ve cast my votes for Michael Lewellen, bartek.eth, and yoav.eth in the Security Council election.
Michael Lewellen brings crucial hands-on security expertise from his work with Immunefi and substantial background in smart contract security. In governance, technical competence must take priority over political considerations - especially when dealing with protocol security.I admire the way he communicate on the security council call being extremely communicative which is also a very important …
Proposal [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
Feedback
Looking at this proposal more critically, I have concerns about the underlying value proposition.
While I understand the intention to support builders, ARB’s downward price movement appears correlated with sell pressure from our various funding initiatives. Before approving additional top-ups, we should address this fundamental issue.
What’s missing from this proposal is essential context - which specific projects from the previous round are actually bringing demonstrable value to the ecosyste…