We believe this proposal enhances Uniswap’s security and operational resilience, while the agreement’s bounty structure is both reasonable and beneficial for users.

This is the resubmission of the ZIP-001 that we already supported and voted for.

We support the defense mechanism to protect the liquidity of the JitoSol while wondering if there is any other way to prevent this from happening rather than putting on fees on those “toxic” flows.

1. Change Easy Track limits for PML & ATC We support this proposal as having flexibility in budget limits is reasonable. That being said, we feel the scope of approval may be overly generous compared to current operational requirements. 2. TMC-4: Increase Stonks execution limits The proposed change appears to be a reasonable decision to improve operational efficiency, especially given that no issues have arisen with Stonks so far. 3. Simply Staking Node Operator Reward Address change We have reviewed this proposal and found no issues, including any discrepancies with the specified address.

We believe that the requested amount is reasonable compared to previous grants and it aligns with Lido's goals. Delivering dual governance and permissionless CSM is essential, and we look forward to seeing these milestones achieved and the next initiatives proposed.

This is a significant step towards improving decentralization for both Lido and the broader Ethereum ecosystem. Allowing CSM to become fully permissionless while carefully managing risks is a sensible and desirable approach to expand its scale and impact.

This appropriately aligns the Standard Node Operator Protocol (SNOP) with the evolving landscape of new Staking Modules, ensuring policies remain relevant, particularly regarding exit processes. Clarifying the recovery process for Node Operators (NOs) to return to in good standing should reduce participation barriers and encourages broader engagement.

This proposal aligns with GOOSE-2 vision of diversifying product lines to expand stETH adoption, leveraging external resources through the Lido Alliance. Projects like Mellow Protocol already demonstrate strong growth potential, and the budget appears reasonable.

As Tané, we are pleased to contribute to the Lido DAO through making this proposal with Lido DAO Ops. By extending the voting duration, as outlined, we believe it will reduce the burden on participants, enabling safer and more efficient governance.

We are excited to observe this experimental initiative managed by Butter and Uniswap Foundation and look forward to seeing the details of the project in coming months.

It’s critical to hyper-focus on the important metric with other parties aligned. Less budget allocated makes sense as the superchain grants are out of scope from this season.

We support the Security Council requests and owns its budget from the governance, and operate for the governance. The appropriate compensation balance between the lead and the members can be revisited in the next season.

The existence of the council has been discussed since the last season and it makes sense for us to dissolve it as the Foundation suggests it will be independent from the power dynamics of the Token House.

We support the transition of the M&M to an own council to operate under its own budget. The scope of the work is reasonable and Jun from PGov is a great lead to manage the council.

We support the budget request and changes to the scope of the DAB as the DAB has been critical in the operations of the Grants Council and contributions to the Collective.

We support the audacious changes to the structure of the council based on the careful considerations on the feedback and learnings in the Season 6. We continue to support the contributions from the Grants Council and other structures in the Collective.

We believe the Collective still needs this structure to keep the health of the governance.

We believe hyper-focus on an important north star metric is critical for all the parties involved for the Superchain growth.

All the proposed changes that are the chain derivation changes, the EIP-1559 elasticity parameter change and the MIPS related changes look reasonable and make sense, to be staged for the future major upgrades. The failure mode analysis provided for these changes is well-thought-out while these changes are not audited according to the Audit Framework.

Great to see this function to be live soon with diligent testings

Maintaining a high level of solver competition is essential to preserving CoW’s competitive edge. With the right incentives, the protocol can continue providing optimal services to its users.

To support the long-term and continuous development of ENS DAO, we support new talents emerging as Stewards. Therefore, we voted for Limes, an experienced Steward with high time commitment, Slobo, another experienced Steward, and cap, whose knowledge and experience as a Dapps Builder is expected to be valuable in future Namechain and other L2 platforms. Although these three have significantly different backgrounds, we expect that this diversity will promote new ideas in the ENS Ecosystem.

To support the long-term and continuous development of ENS DAO, we support new talents emerging as Stewards. Therefore, we voted for the two current experienced Stewards and sovereignsignal, who excel in Grant management. We expect that with current Stewards and experienced new members, new improvement ideas for ENS Public Goods will be promoted.

We will abstain from voting for one of the candidates. However, if we were to select two candidates other than ourselves, we would recommend the two experienced Stewards.

We believe it is reasonable to make the decisive judgment to discontinue this feature, understanding that it is expected to be short-lived for v2.

In some assets, a small number of addresses hold most of the supply cap, so increasing the caps could affect large suppliers and potentially increase concentration risk. However, it is clear that demand is very high, and the current supply caps are likely insufficient to meet this demand. From this point and a liquidity perspective, raising the supply caps seems necessary.

This proposal also addresses the need to adjust COMP rewards to better align with market dynamics. By reducing borrow-side COMP rewards, it aims to curb excessive spending and promote a more sustainable incentive structure. Meanwhile, maintaining robust supply-side rewards ensures continued liquidity provision and supports the protocol’s competitiveness in attracting suppliers. This balanced approach reflects the evolving needs of the market while preserving the protocol's long-term stability.

This proposal is a concrete implementation of the recently discussed opinion that "supply-side incentives should be strengthened, and borrow-side incentives should be reduced," and the reasons for agreement are clear. By increasing supply rates at low utilization, it aims to provide attractive returns for suppliers and promote liquidity provision. On the other hand, borrow-side incentives have been reviewed by raising borrow rates at high utilization, effectively curbing excessive borrowing.

Having transaction simulations available at the time of Snapshot submission, which can be verified, contributes to enhanced governance security. The other proposed changes also appear to be generally reasonable.

We recognize the clear risks of relying on external protocols that are not immutable for the Optimizer. While the current TVL is approximately $500M, we believe this decision is essential to safeguard the growth of Morpho Blue and maintain the Morpho brand accordingly.

We support this proposal as it enables Morpho to secure a low 7-figure fee, even though the exact amount is undisclosed. Additionally, it does not place an excessive burden on the contributors’ resources.

We believe that Ethereum’s rollup-centric roadmap makes it strategically important to secure a significant position in the largest rollup ecosystem over the medium to long term. Therefore, incentives on Base should be actively increased. While this proposal represents a gradual increase, we remain open to considering more assertive approaches if deemed necessary in the future.

The introduction of a grant program is a vital step in expanding the ecosystem. Running it as a pilot program will likely reveal various challenges, and we aim to contribute meaningfully to address them.

Contributors should be fairly compensated for their efforts, and the amount proposed is reasonable and well within acceptable parameters. Importantly, the allocation process appears both transparent and proper.

The change makes sense to improve the user experience with the Security Council oversight in place.

We believe that rules enhancing the transparency and public nature of the Uniswap DAO, and making DAO governance by delegates fairer, are important for the DAO. We agree with these principles, which can improve the health of the Uniswap DAO by garnering support from more delegates.

In some assets, a small number of addresses hold most of the supply cap, so increasing the caps could affect large suppliers and potentially increase concentration risk. However, it is clear that demand is very high, and the current supply caps are likely insufficient to meet this demand. From this point and a liquidity perspective, raising the supply caps seems necessary.

We vote for Arbitrum and two others. We support the general direction of the initiative; it’s vital to understand what customers think about the product and ecosystem via user research. While the ARDC could cover this in an ideal world, we think it’s acceptable for another initiative like this to cover the important initiative. Eventually, the DAO should have its continuous system to work on efforts around this user research area. Without compared ecosystems to research against, the research outcome will be less valuable, thus we choose the option including two others. They should not necessarily be Solana and OP Mainnet, but can be Solana and Base, or even Solana ecosystem and Superchain ecosystem, which would be more valuable. Articulated criteria on how to choose builders for the research is critical to answer but can be further reported in the ongoing meetings (e.g. GRC) Forming a “council” does make sense but we consider it more like a review group with different stakeholders, rather than “council” that has been more operating roles within the Arbitrum DAO, to our knowledge (e.g. LTIPP council) On metagovernance topics like “why this proposal was rushed onto Snapshot?”, we should create a certain social rule on how long a proposal should be discussed before going into its Snapshot rather than arbitrarily pointing it out as it’s too short for the Snapshot phase, etc.

We acknowledge that this version of the proposal will be updated with another proposal in the near future.

Testing for the treasury transfer from the onchain voting

While it is unfortunate for CoW DAO that the solver operations will cease, even if only temporarily, this situation is unavoidable and should be addressed appropriately.　The necessary steps outlined in the thread have been properly followed prior to moving to the CIP phase, and we see no grounds for objection.

The bonding pool has been reimbursed, the root cause of the bug addressed, and the final procedures after the incident seem ready to be concluded. That said, we believe it is essential to establish more robust preventive measures against this kind of incident as shared here.

Protocol governance requires expertise, making it challenging to delegate responsibilities entirely to the community. Establishing roles like recognized delegates effectively involves experts and trusted participants, strengthening the governance system.

We believe that the proposal to introduce Compound Sandbox has the potential to realize governance efficiency, which is currently a key focus for the protocol. By allowing anyone to freely create and test markets, it decentralizes the experimentation process for new markets and reduces the overall burden on the protocol. Additionally, the process of promoting only successful markets to the main protocol simplifies the traditional steps of "proposal → discussion → voting → execution," accelerating the protocol’s overall growth.

Continuous risk monitoring is essential as Mantle pursues its strategy to expand its ecosystem through collaboration with Compound. By strengthening the connection between Compound and Mantle Network, this proposal aims to activate capital flows between the two, potentially enhancing the value of Compound itself.

This proposal is deemed appropriate as a mechanism to significantly reduce the frequency of voting and alleviate the burden on participants. It achieves a balance between efficiency and security through the introduction of timelocks and guardian roles. However, it is considered necessary to establish rules for notification to ensure transparency and implement features for referencing change histories. These measures would make it easier for participants to understand the details of changes and enhance the overall reliability of the system.

Critical protocol updates for gas optimization and maintainability with the audit done by OpenZeppelin.

Compound is experiencing growing demand in various markets, and maintaining competitiveness requires offering attractive incentives for borrowers. While high interest rates are already appealing, enhancing incentives remains a reasonable step to encourage broader protocol adoption. With appropriate adjustments, replenishing the rewards contracts is a justified appraoch.

By adding wUSDM as a new collateral asset, users can leverage arbitrage opportunities utilizing its 5% annual yield, enabling efficient asset management even in low borrow rate environments. Furthermore, as a stable collateral asset with minimal price volatility, wUSDM allows users to manage their positions efficiently while reducing risks.

We are in support of this activity, which is expected to strengthen the community and accelerate the de-centralization of the ENS DAO.

We understand that the substantial contents of EP5.25 are already approved, and there is no practical change. We support the continued and stable activities by the established working groups.

1. Change Easy Track limits for PML & ATC We support this proposal as having flexibility in budget limits is reasonable. That being said, we feel the scope of approval may be overly generous compared to current operational requirements. 2. TMC-4: Increase Stonks execution limits The proposed change appears to be a reasonable decision to improve operational efficiency, especially given that no issues have arisen with Stonks so far. 3. Simply Staking Node Operator Reward Address change We have reviewed this proposal and found no issues, including any discrepancies with the specified address.

With a high degree of operational maturity, it is reasonable to improve efficiency through the introduction of an optimistic governance process. As a participant in governance, we support this proposal and will carefully monitor it to ensure that the committee functions correctly within this framework.

We voted for sunsetting Lido on Polygon, because - The future direction of the Polygon POS chain, especially its position within Polygon's AggLayer, is unclear. - Growth is difficult due to factors beyond the control of Shard Labs and Lido DAO. - Instead, the entire Lido DAO could focus on businesses that leverage stETH, which has some huge advantages in the market.

We voted for this proposal, because - Even when an incident has occurred, it is proper to take corrective measures and gradually resume operations. - This principle remains universal, even in the case of acquisition. - By thoroughly testing through a trial run on the testnet, a certain level of safety can be ensured. That being said, we believe it's worth regularly reviewing and discussing the possibility of replacing curated NOs —　not just those with prior incidents — to neutrally consider if there are other NOs more suitable for the curated set.

Similar to Bware Labs' case, we do not see any reason to discontinue their operation because - As communicated by LNOSG, they have evaluated that the transition will be smooth and without issues. - Its operational structure after the acquisition was announced to remain the same as before the acquisition.

We do not see any reason to discontinue their operation because - As communicated by LNOSG, they have evaluated that the transition will be smooth and without issues. - Bware Labs itself announced the continuity of its operational structure after acquisition.

We generally agree with the overall direction of Hasu's proposal, and thus voted for this proposal. However, we still have a concern regarding the main focus of the goal #1, Strengthen LDO’s Role in Governance. We acknowledge the importance of strengthening alignment across the DAO through revisions to the LDO token design. But given the presence of other challenges and the likelihood that implementing changes to the LDO token design will take considerable time, we do not believe it should be prioritized as the most critical theme in governance at this stage.

Clear guidelines ensures solvers conduct transactions appropriately, protecting user interests, the protocol and this DAO. This will be safeguards for potential damages in exceptional cases.

During its trial period, the GWG achieved clear results, such as improving voter participation and resolving quorum issues. This proposal offers practical ideas to solve important challenges in Compound governance, such as a new delegate reward program and better transparency in fund management.

This action strengthens the community’s commitment to user protection and increases trust in the protocol. While the return involves a 10% penalty and a reduction in reserves, it follows a transparent and fair process. This ensures that accidental transfers are handled clearly, improving the protocol’s reputation as user-friendly while balancing user protection and protocol sustainability.

Since LINK and UNI exhibit high volatility, the revision of the Liquidation Factor and Collateral Factor enables faster liquidations, reducing the platform's loss risk. Additionally, raising the liquidation penalty incentivizes liquidators, making the process more efficient and improving risk management. Furthermore, as the utilization rates of the supply caps are significantly low, reducing the supply caps is unlikely to negatively impact market liquidity or borrowing demand. The impact on positions with increased liquidation risk is also limited, making this proposal reasonable.

We believe establishing a proper treasury management function in the DAO is critical as the presented key issues should be addressed sooner rather than later. We also appreciate the updated proposal that have incorporated various feedback from the other delegates including the milestone-based compensation scheme. Ultimately, the program success depends on upcoming suggestions from the TMC and GMC and we believe the selected members are capable of providing them along the way. We will closely review them and make sure they are managed in an appropriate manner via their regular reporting. In the future, as @gauntlet suggested, the DAO should explore a less manual approach to manage the treasury with minimized operations (and operating members to be elected by the DAO if needed) and we would encourage the to-be-established OpCo to propose a revised plan after the 6-months v1.2 initiative.

The current APR for stablecoins on Compound is lower compared to Sky Protocol. However, deploying the USDS market and listing sUSDS can address this issue. The upgrade of Dai has the potential to attract more users and increase liquidity. Deploying the USDS market presents an opportunity for Compound to benefit from these advantages.

Using wUSDM as collateral allows users on Compound to secure a stable yield through arbitrage, even when borrowing rates are low. While the current circulating supply is limited, the Optimism Yield-bearing assets incentive program is expected to promote ecosystem growth, which would also bring grant funds to Compound.

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally. We maintain our opinions made at the Snapshot phase and continue to support the new term of the ARDC. The funding amount was lower than the one we voted for, but with the recent price appreciation, it’s matched what we believe is the best.

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally. We maintain our position made at the Snapshot phase and continue to support the idea of establishing the 2025 events budget for the smooth budgeting process with a clear framework.

In some assets, a small number of addresses hold most of the supply cap, so increasing the caps could affect large suppliers and potentially increase concentration risk. However, it is clear that demand is very high, and the current supply caps are likely insufficient to meet this demand. From this point and a liquidity perspective, raising the supply caps seems necessary.

It’s critical program to grow the ZKsync ecosystem at this stage.

This proposal offers advantages based on the high liquidity and reliability of FRAX, as well as the opportunity for users to leverage their assets for greater returns. Since the APY of $sFRAX is linked to the U.S. IORB rate, it is expected to provide a stable yield aligned with economic conditions, making it an attractive source of income for users. Additionally, it adds more options for collateral on Compound, helping users diversify their portfolios.

Using wUSDM as collateral allows users on Compound to secure a stable yield through arbitrage, even when borrowing rates are low. While the current circulating supply is limited, the Optimism Yield-bearing assets incentive program is expected to promote ecosystem growth, which would also bring grant funds to Compound.

In some assets, a small number of addresses hold most of the supply cap, so increasing the caps could affect large suppliers and potentially increase concentration risk. However, it is clear that demand is very high, and the current supply caps are likely insufficient to meet this demand. From this point and a liquidity perspective, raising the supply caps seems necessary.

By listing ETHx before competing DeFi protocols, Compound is expected to enhance its competitive edge. ETHx also seems low-risk because of its careful initial settings, strong decentralization, and sufficient liquidity. However, if demand changes, these settings might need to be adjusted in the future.

The USDC and DAI reserves are high enough, so even if the market changes, funds can be taken from the Aera vault to cover it. This proposal shows careful risk management that stays within safe limits.

The user bases of both Compound and Mantle are expected to expand. Also, Mantle Treasury holds substantial assets and it is expected to benefit from the growth of the Mantle ecosystem.

It’s been great to see the well-crafted and detailed CoC for delegates to uphold and hold each other accountable for the social layer of the governance. We also like the approach that having it as a pilot for 6.5 months and then incorporate them into the constitution.

Using wUSDM as collateral allows users to arbitrage yields even when borrow rates are low. Additionally, since USDM is available on multiple chains, Compound can expand its user base, increase liquidity, and improve risk diversification.

We support this proposal. Our questions regarding the budget and the proposal’s objectives have been addressed by @dennisonb. Tally is an essential service for Uniswap’s DAO governance, and we are in favor of providing this funding.

Adjusting the IR curve is a flexible approach in response to market demand. Additionally, reducing excessive incentive spending would ease the financial burden on the protocol. Through these adjustments, it could reduce the risk of excessive utilization, balancing ease of use for users with the protocol’s profitability.

This proposal is expected to meet the incressing market demand, enhance protocol stability, and improving user experience.

Compared to other promising candidates, they are on the border of being chosen. With a limited amount of the VP we have, we use our 100% VP to support them. We would also vote for gzeon, Emiliano Bonassi, Immunefi and Dennison Bertram.

The charter has clarified criteria that the Standard Rollups should adhere to.

We believe it's an important step to more decentralization of the governance. The next big step would be to allow DAO members to permissionlessly create proposals and we should discuss how to achieve them.

We vote to “Reconfirm Tim Chang and John Kennedy for the GCP Council”. Their expertises and experiences are valuable for continuous explorations of the GCP and we support them to serve the council.

We vote to “Reconfirm Tim Chang and John Kennedy for the GCP Council”. Their expertises and experiences are valuable for continuous explorations of the GCP and we support them to serve the council.

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally. We maintain the support made on Snapshot as below and acknowledge two concerns are appropriately addressed after the Snapshot. We believe Stylus is the key innovation that the Arbitrum ecosystem should push forward and are looking forward to the success of this program.

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally. We maintain our decision made on Snapshot as below and continue to support the effort done by the SEED Gov team.

While there were some challenges reported by L2BEAT in this report 1, we believe that the ARDC members have provided valuable deliverables for the DAO. We acknowledge that it’s difficult to quantify the value provided by them and hope it would be something the new program can address. Having an oversight council makes sense as well, and we’re looking for Entropy to take its role as it feels one of their responsibilities. For the budget, considering the quotes provided by the actual members that have done the works, and according to the author’s recommendation, we believe the Option B is the most balanced one to experiment with.

While we acknowledge various concerns related to this program, we support the experimental nature of it and rely on the judgement and evaluations done by the selected program members. As GFX mentioned, the budget wouldn’t be used if the token swap doesn’t make sense. We see similar programs done by other DAOs while they are not necessarily proven successful yet. Many pointed out the risks, but there will be potential upsides that the DAO can take from this program and we believe it’s worth looking into. We would request changes if it goes to the onchain though: 1) as other delegates suggested, the lock-in period should be longer like 2-years for Arbitrum and target protocols to be aligned for the long term. 2) considering the experimental nature of the program, the compensations should be somehow split into an advance as the minimum base, and retroactive rewards based on successful token swap cases, otherwise, the program would pay out much expense without any success case (or lead to unnecessary pressure to the members to make some token swap happen.)

We maintain the support made on Snapshot as below and continue to monitor the progress of the program.

We strongly support this proposal, especially since we believe that accommodating more than four chains approved by its Snapshot one is essential, even more so than during the previous vote.

Preconfirmation has been a hot topic around Ethereum staking and was also the initial scope in reGOOSE, so this kind of initiative makes sense. However, it is still unclear to what extent Lido DAO should support preconfirmation, and this should become clear after thorough research such as Nethermind's research on preconf's economic viability.

Currently, we want to grow both SDVT and CSM, and this seems like a very fair decision because the point incentives provided for SDVT's growth can also be utilized to incentivize deposits to CSM. In the future, it would make sense to have a separate vault for CSM, following the roadmap of Staking Router development, and let the market decide which staking module to be in favor.

We voted to recognize this bridge as canonical after checking the audits were done for these implementations. This should lead to the further expansion of stETH.Since the safety and effectiveness of code audits can vary depending on factors such as the auditor, reviews and checks like those performed by @TheDZhon are extremely helpful in enhancing security.

We supported all three of the proposals listed above. Especially, approving CSM is an important step toward enhancing the decentralization of Lido and Ethereum, and we didn’t find any issues with supporting them. We also acknowledge that the audits have been done by Ackee Blockchain and MixBytes. Everything seems on track, so we support this proposal as we have before.

By establishing a program like this, the DAO can effectively communicate with projects interested in collaborating with Uniswap and execute the initiatives for users, which we believe will impact Uniswap’s market share. Additionally, we believe that incorporating a trial period is crucial for forming a new organization. We acknowledge that the objectives for business development and marketing are clearly defined, and we feel that our previous concerns regarding the KPIs have been addressed.

While we have some concerns about the quality of the executions and outcome from this initiative, we consider it worth a try to focus on aligning the DAO’s key members with the strategic directions that the DAO needs to tackle going forward.

We maintain the support at the Snapshot stage and look forward to the transition of the RARI DAO governance onto Arbitrum with additional treatments like offsetting the cost of bridging and potential incentives for the transition.

We maintain the support made in the Snapshot phase and acknowledge that lack of transparency is largely due to the nature of partnership discussions and the protection for the competitive edge. We will review the special section dedicated to this partnership funds in the future transparency reports.

We value the consistent financial support to the whole Ethereum ecosystem by ENS DAO given that ENS's future is tightly knitted to the development of the ecosystem and that ENS DAO is highly profitable when compared with other major DAOs. This is a contribution that few DAOs can afford to, and thus very meaningful.

This is also where continuity matters as this will give reliability to the ENS as a platform to build something upon from builders' perspective. We see some unique and exciting projects that received grants such as 3DNS. It seems that grants are distributed in a desirable way.

This is necessary, just like for other working groups, and should be approved without question unless there are significant changes or significant needs for changes. We believe there's no problem with approving it this time.

We are opposed to this proposal. Our reason is that, compared to other chains, and considering that Lisk’s TVL is mostly composed of the LSK token, even when taking into account the promised $1 million in POL and the $250,000 Lisk incentive matching, we believe that the $375,000 incentive is too large. Gnosis Chain, which had a TVL of $300 million at the time of its proposal, was allocated $250,000 in the Onboarding Package via Snapshot. We also believe that Lisk Chain’s TVL is smaller compared to Linea and Scroll, which received $250,000 in incentives through the Onboarding Package. We think it would be better to reconsider this proposal on a smaller scale.

We maintain our stance made in the Snapshot phase and continue to support the change after having reviewed the report by the ARDC.

We maintain our support from the Snapshot voting for the “Panda Partners” tier sponsorship of the event. We believe in the direct mission alignment between the Arbitrum ecosystem and the Attackathon and the donation amount is reasonable.

1. stETH on L2 We support this proposal as it enhances the accessibility of stETH across L2 networks, leveraging existing wstETH infrastructure. This expansion will provide users with a consistent experience across both L1 and L2. 2. Organize the Lido Alliance Program as a Lido-DAO-Adjacent BORG We support setting up an EasyTrack for the Lido Alliance Operational Multisig to simplify operations. The approved BORG entity provides a legal framework for agreements without exposing Lido DAO to legal risks. This structure keeps Lido DAO decentralized while supporting the Alliance’s needs, with EasyTrack improving fund management.

We maintain our decision made at its Snapshot voting phase and appreciate the additional information added to the proposal. We also appreciate the future effort to make sure that there will be elections before the next phase of the committee with potential collaborations with Entropy and/or other suitable entities.

Worth trying to attract applications to tackle this request

We voted for these three individuals in equal proportions because we felt they are the most capable of providing value to this committee, considering their existing contributions to the Uniswap DAO and their achievements in other DAOs. Doo has had a long tenure with the Uniswap DAO and has been active in various other DAOs. Alice, as a member of Karpatkey, has been active in multiple DAOs besides Uniswap. JoJo is engaged in delegate activities in DAOs like us on Arbitrum, and we believe their contributions make them suitable for this committee.

We vote for Use ENS txt records on Snapshot. This change leads to a better accessibility of the metadata for the toolings in the ecosystem, without additional cost. We believe it’s acceptable to utilize the ENS records for the information.

We appreciate the potential value to be provided by the research from TogetherCrew team without cost from the DAO treasury. However, we are not certain that the DAO is the one to decide whether the API access to Discord is allowed, while most of the Discourse data is public and much related to discussions around the DAO. Either way, we support the concept and its modified implementation that addresses the concerns from the delegates and related parties.

We consider this as a simple oversight during the process and it’s natural to allow the provider with great track record to properly operate the validator as a Nova validator.

Eth.link has been used by various projects to provide access to ENS and IPFS sites. It has been utilized by some of the largest projects in the space, including Uniswap. It is important for ENS to responsibly maintain such a highly public domain, which is crucial not only for ENS but also for the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole.

We support the proposal to secure a budget for analyzing the URGP using Forse. We feel that the concerns—such as including more than four chains at the Snapshot stage and that Arbitrum is not included in the URGP—have been resolved through efforts to eliminate budget issues and avoid overlap with Gauntlet. The URGP is a very important project for Uniswap, and we believe that measuring its effectiveness is essential. Initially, we thought that the UAC itself should investigate the feasibility of this project, but we feel that using Forse will allow for a detailed measurement of its effectiveness. We look forward to the detailed analysis results for the DAO to further improve the URGP.

We believe adding (rather than changing) the functionality in proposing executable ENS proposals with a required bond mechanism is the right approach and the proposed initial values are reasonable. As Kent pointed out, we assume the frontends can utilize the additional changes provided by this proposal for the onchain tools to be supported by multiple platforms while the development is approved by the DAO to go ahead.

If you think about the Foundation as a service provider, they have done tremendous work so far including bringing strategic partnerships, to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Expanding more partnerships to compete other networks with more budget from the party with great track record makes total sense. However, as already pointed out, the transparency of the program and its reporting should be treated as the important deliverables to be promised by the Foundation. We also suggest the proposal to provide more break-downs of the budget with detailed objectives and plans before its onchain voting.

We appreciate all the work so far and effort to improve the program even further with a new system and established structure that apparently works for the objective. While there is an increase in spending from the DAO perspective, we believe the new V1.5 system has been designed well and ready to be experimented with administration support from the SEED team. The program lasts for 12 months but we like the fact that the details of the program can be modified based on the results that we will see.

We support this proposal because it addresses the critical operational needs of the Uniswap DAO by renewing the Uniswap Accountability Committee (UAC) for Season 3 with expanded capacity and funding, rebalancing the budgets for Season 2 to account for UNI token price fluctuations, and supporting an extra 16th delegate slot for the Delegate Reward Initiative Cycle 2 to promote broader participation within the DAO; these measures strengthen the DAO’s operational capacity, enhance governance, and support its long-term objectives.

As discussed separately with Klaus, this is a great update at this moment, and you can prepare for the 2025 event planning with other initiatives ahead into 2025. Looking forward to the GovHack Devcon!

We believe the GovHack will cover what this program has to provide in part and the only possible format to differentiate from the other offline event form is online events, but they have to be clearly designed, focused, promoted and executed with a much lower budget, which is challenging.

While the DAO needs to address the issue around the conversation between the fiat and ARB token, we agree that the initial promise and contract with service providers should be respected and followed through with funds compensated by the treasury. Now, it’s more critical to execute the program than delaying the operations.

We maintain our stance in the comment posted before and continue to support the progress of the development of Timeboost. We have also support the adjustments around a few parameters to be adjustable by Offchain Labs to fine-tune the design and achieve the stability, user experience and economics for the Arbitrum DAO. Also, interested in the future improvement partnering with the Espresso team.

While the request itself seems totally valid, we respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same.

We believe all the options ranked high by the council deserve to accept applications within this cycle's budget

Abstain due to our role as a Grants Council member

We believe the selection is a great mix of members who has relevant experiences and expertises to serve as the Security Council

We would have voted abstain if it’s an option because we are one of the options to be chosen, but vote for Both as it’s closest to abstain. As expressed in the comment to the relevant thread, we would like to respect what the DAO decides and the outcome to be ratified on Snapshot.

While the request itself seems totally valid, we respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period (which hasn’t started yet but in effect soon) and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same.

While the request itself seems totally valid and we expressed the support, we have resolved to respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period (which hasn’t started yet but in effect soon) and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same. We apologize for the wrong signal made before realizing the Detox is in effect for the extension.

We appreciate all the work and comprehensive report provided for the Phase I and continuous effort to be made by the experienced actors in the area. However, we echo the concerns by other delegates on bigger scopes and higher compensations to each party (2.5x from the one in Phase I). Also, the detailed breakdown of the budget, especially the below part should be explicitly clarified in the proposal.

We maintain the support made in the comment before and appreciate RARI Foundation’s plan to offset the cost of bridging and implement potential incentives for its smoother transition.

We believe Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers and it’s important to generate momentum of its use within the developer community to have attractive applications and toolings on the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus the program like this is timely, crucial and much needed. We also agree that having an Evaluation Committee is selected by the program manager from the beginning with Stylus experts, but it would be better to have consideration to include contributors who are familiar with the grants as it’s basically another grants program focusing on a particular type of applications on the ecosystem. Entropy can play a role in that perspective, but as other delegates pointed out, possibly a few grants/incentive-providing experts like JoJo can be involved. We also believe that conducting proper marketing campaigns about the program is the key. There doesn’t seem to be an explicit budget allocation to that point, but we would want the program manager to consider it to be included before its onchain ratification.

We fully support increasing both the number of committee members and working hours per member because the committee that has more responsibilities and commitments should greatly benefit the DAO. We also believe it’s crucial for the current members to continue serving on the committee, given their contributions so far. We look forward to seeing their continued efforts. The compensation for the overtime work in Season 2 is fair and necessary, and we consider the additional funding to be justified. The proposed budget for the committee’s compensations in the upcoming season is essential and should be approved. We would love to start supporting the committee even more in the future.

We believe this rebalancing is necessary due to the fluctuation of the UNI token price. We would suggest that the committee should consider adding some buffer for the future programs to the budget so that the DAO doesn’t have to vote on rebalancing again.

we maintain the rational made for its Snapshot and support the proposal to make a significant impact by applying those changes and monitoring the data.

While we agree that the Ethereum Foundation’s attacathon is trying to solve an important problem, we don’t feel strongly about the significance of sponsorship with such a large sum of money from the Uniswap DAO.

We believe this is an interesting experiment to encourage small size token holders to get involved in the governance in a meaningful way and a good way of utilizing the treasury to contribute to the voting situations. Delegating the operations to the Arbitrum MSS also makes sense.

We believe this is an interesting experiment to encourage small size token holders to get involved in the governance in a meaningful way and a good way of utilizing the treasury to contribute to the voting situations. Delegating the operations to the Arbitrum MSS also makes sense.

We recognize the strategic importance of the Lido Alliance and the need for a legal structure to facilitate agreements in its operations. The BORG structure provides a balanced approach, offering legal capabilities without directly exposing Lido DAO to potential legal risks. At the same time, we’d love to contribute to gradual improvements such as increasing transparency and appropriately handling such projects as Lido DAO.

As shared in the Snapshot page, the responses from both CryptoManufaktur and Galaxy indicate that there will be no significant changes in the key factors listed above, at least for the short term. This strongly suggests that the quality of the node operation by Galaxy will remain consistent with what CryptoManufaktur has been providing. Additionally, as a topic to be discussed in the future, we believe there’s a need for implementing a routine assessment of existing Node Operators in Lido’s Curated Module. This process would serve two crucial purposes: 1. To track any changes that may occur to Galaxy (or any other operator) in the mid/long term and regularly check their eligibility as a Node Operator in Lido’s Curated Module. 2. To identify and potentially remove Node Operators from Lido’s Curated Module that are no longer meeting the initial selection criteria, either due to changes in their operation or failure to keep up with the latest best practices of node operation. This proposed assessment process would ensure the ongoing quality and reliability of Lido’s Curated Module.

The budget was already approved and the distributions of it proposed by Alex makes sense, thus no reason to be against it. We appreciate all the contributors who are experienced in the process of LTIPP and other initiatives are compensated for their work for STIP-Bridge operations.

We believe the benefits of extending the L2 Core Time Lock delay should outweigh the downside described in the proposal and it’s reasonable as this change wouldn’t affect proposals that merely transfer funds from the treasury. We would review the planned check by the ARDC Security member before its onchain vote.

We maintain the rationale made for its Snapshot and support the proposal for the delegate incentives.

We would basically vote for “Panda Partners” that would give reasonable support to the initiative that contributes to the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.

The only candidate and the current lead of SC, who diligently coordinates with appropriate dev members and updates the activities.

While we have some concern on how the previous upgrade was deployed, this upgrade to fix the vulnerabilities found in the audit should be done anyway

We support this Cycle 2 proposal that allows new delegates like us to apply for and contribute to the DAO governance in a potentially sustainable way. We believe it’s a positive development that the Voting Power requirement has been removed, making it easier for new delegates like us to participate in. The scoring mechanism would be iterated over and the impact the program has been making should be reviewed for the future cycle, though.

We appreciate Austin’s proposal to compete with Aerodrome on Base, one of the most important battleground chains. We directionally agree with the proposal to experiment configurations to increase the protocol revenue. In addition to recognizing concerns from other delegates and community members, we would love to see a more concrete plan as it’s marked as an experiment; the plan should articulate 1) how those pools are created with minimized liquidity fragmentations 2) how the protocol reacts to fee changes by Aerodrome 3) how the DAO can evaluate the experiment success. How does the revenue increase from more market shares overweigh the decreases resulted from the lower fee pools? 4) how long the DAO experiments this and make sure the results will be properly evaluated. Who is responsible for the follow-through of the experiment? Looking forward to the complete on-chain proposal for a successful experiment to run for the protocol.

Same as the one made for Vote #177

No doubt the DAO should implement a disclosure policy at least. On top of that, we believe the Responsible Voting Policy is best suited for the current DAO voting situation as we see it working well in the Optimism for some of its election votings. As Frisson said, ideally the DAO proposals should be passed even with abstains from delegates who have conflicts with them, but practically it’s too early to implement Strict Self-Voting Policy especially for elections.

As a temp-check, we are in support of the general direction that the DAO should take for the treasury management. We are grateful of the extensive involvement from Karpatkey and Gauntlet. We don’t necessarily agree with the requirement that the DAO needs to set up a RFP for multiple service providers to apply for; With the reasonable proposal to kick start the important functions of the DAO, the DAO should practically choose the currently available and best options. The proposal includes the Oversight Committee and reporting requirements, which should work for the DAO to diligently monitor what the initiative will have been doing. Giving too much concerns before kickstarting things off would lead to huge opportunity costs. We would only ask clearer responsibilities that the initiative will take on while having a relatively high management fee (1% vs. 0.5% on the other protocol) before the onchain voting and a possible adjustment to the size of the fund to be managed based on the current market.

We maintain the rationale made for its Snapshot voting and continue to support the proposal as it is.

The governance process should be clearly defined in the governance document and widely known especially to proposal creators (delegate with enough VPs to create proposals) who should be guardians of enforcing the guidance defined in the governance document.

We are in favor of exploring an opportunity for delegates to effectively work on important matters in an offline environment during a big conference like DevCon. The details and execution plan should be definitely sorted out, though.

It’s critical to keep the incentivized delegates who are actively contributing to the important DAO decision makings motivated with a short-term extension. We are excited about the updated v1.1 Delegate Incentive Program as well.

We vote For Elections Only. While we acknowledge the beauty of transparency of ongoing Snapshot votes, having shielded voting for elections would outweigh the benefit which encourages voters to vote on their preferred choices rather than following the current top choices.

We maintain the rationale made for its Snapshot and support the deployment of Uniswap v3 on X Layer and the cost for Oku Trade deployment.

We appreciate Austin’s proposal to compete with Aerodrome on Base, one of the most important battleground chains. We directionally agree with the proposal to experiment configurations to increase the protocol revenue. In addition to recognizing concerns from other delegates and community members, we would love to see a more concrete plan as it’s marked as an experiment; the plan should articulate 1) how those pools are created with minimized liquidity fragmentations 2) how the protocol reacts to fee changes by Aerodrome 3) how the DAO can evaluate the experiment success. How does the revenue increase from more market shares overweigh the decreases resulted from the lower fee pools? 4) how long the DAO experiments this and make sure the results will be properly evaluated. Who is responsible for the follow-through of the experiment? Looking forward to the complete on-chain proposal for a successful experiment to run for the protocol.

We believe better understanding of the governance and delegates is critical for the DAO to improve its governance and evaluate the ongoing programs (e.g. Delegate Incentive Program). Regarding the overlap on the tools, we consider the proposed dashboard is more for retroactive analysis on the governance while Karma is to capture snapshots of how the delegates perform, thus they can exist and complement each other.

We maintain the directional support that was made in our comment and recognize all the changes made by incorporating the feedback from the delegates. We are excited about the power and benefits that Tally Protocol can bring and further improvements to be made on the Arbitrum DAO governance and alignments between stakeholders.

After our initial comment, there have been more clarifications, discussions and affirmations (on the cost by other data tool providers) that make this proposal appealing and we are convinced of potential returns that this analytics tools can provide in the long run. Especially the development cost of the foundation is considered reasonable and promising for future marketing uses that would lead to more developers and users on the Arbitrum ecosystem.

1. Oracle member rotation While there have been several interests from potential oracle operators, we agree to choose MatrixedLink for the rotation on this occasion as they are one of operators that have experienced the Oracle testnet run and look for more improvements to be introduced with Second Opinion Oracle project. 2. Node Operator name & reward address update This is a highly administrative matter, and we don’t have any particular objections to it. This kind of administrative approval should not need snapshot or on-chain vote. As Izzy mentioned in the forum, setting up Easy Track for this kind of case would be helpful. 3. On-Chain Delegation Having good governance is the key for DAO to be successful. However, there have been several proposals that were rejected due to the lack of the amount of votes. This implementation will enable delegating onchain voting power for LDO holders and thus more voting power can be utilized for the governance. This is an important step for strengthening Lido DAO governance.

We maintain the rationale below on this proposal and continue to support the selected members to act as the guardians of the Arbitrum Multi-sig. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-multi-sig-support-service-mss/23737/32?u=tane

We maintain our rationales below for each individual update and support a package of those updates to be deployed as "Bianca". We appreciate the proper audits on each implementation and OpenZeppelin's reviews as a part of ARDC works. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-activate-stylus-and-enable-next-gen-webassembly-smart-contracts-arbos-30/22970/34?u=tane https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-nova-fee-router-proposal-arbos-30/23310/25?u=tane https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-support-rip-7212-for-account-abstraction-wallets-arbos-30/23298/33?u=tane We are particularly excited to see Stylus finally going live!

We maintain the rationale that we stated on the Snapshot and support the onboarding package for Gnosis Chain.

We support the deployment of Uniswap v3 and Oku Trade as we recognize the team’s commitment to providing $1M worth of liquidity in the protocol.

We generally agree on introducing an analytics tooling for the DAO to appropriately evaluate programs that the DAO has set out. Especially for the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program, we were wondering how the DAO evaluates the impact made by the incentives that were distributed to each chain and revisits how we can improve the program and calibrate how we distribute future incentives. Ideally, creating an RFP based on the requirements that this proposal is basically addressing, asking for potential service providers to work on it and organizing an election of the SP would be the way to approach this kind of initiatives, but practically, we believe the DAO should accept the best available option by the DAO contributor with the track record. For the selection of the chains to be analyzed, we choose Base, Scroll, and Blast and distributed our VP into each equally. 1) We believe with this budget as Wintermute suggested, the dashboard and analytics should cover 4 chains or more. 2) Arbitrum isn’t a part of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program. While Arbitrum is a good chain to analyze on, the DAO should focus on how the program performs based on the data and insights provided by Forse. 3) Why don’t we have BSC as a selection? The DAO distributed 1M and it’s worth looking into the performance of it. If it’s in the selection, we would add BSC for a chain to be supported on the dashboard.

We consider the STIP (and its bridge) and LTIPP are purely experiments that need deep analysis and considerations for its complete version of the mechanism. To do so, the DAO requires dedicated resources including time, thus having the detox period makes perfect sense. We appreciate the work by all the contributors including L2BEAT, Matt from StableLab, the LTIPP council members and advisors, so far and in the future.As dk3 suggested, we would also suggest a name to clarify that it’s not just about “detoxing” but more of a reflection and review. Incentives Program Reflection Period is our suggestion.

Expansion of wstETH to Mode is favorable, as Mode could potentially be a DeFi hub of the Superchain ecosystem and bring huge utility to wstETH. The only concern was the security. After reviewing the assessment provided by the working group of Lido on Ethereum protocol contributors, we do not see any issues with using this bridge.

Unlike previous bridge proposals, this one uniquely combines Wormhole and Axelar, rather than utilizing a canonical bridge for a specific rollup or chain. While TheDZhon’s suggestion to add more bridges with a 2/3 threshold would undoubtedly enhance security in the future, the current proposal seems to provide adequate security measures for the time being.

We vote for Oxytocin because of their experience as a CoCC member and continuous contributions to the DAO as a delegate, Pumbi and Alex because of their contributions to the DAO and unique experiences, and CryptoReuMD because their completely unique experience and knowledge with the DAO.

We oppose allocating any incentives from the Uniswap DAO to X Layer because the TVL on X Layer is significantly lower than that of other chains which have previously received $250,000 in incentives.

While there have been several interests from potential oracle operators, we agree to choose MatrixedLink for the rotation on this occasion as they are one of operators that have experienced the Oracle testnet run and look for more improvements to be introduced with Second Opinion Oracle project.

As stated in the updated scorecard, there are a lot of points to be improved in Lido DAO’s governance. As we saw success of similar delegate programs in other DAOs, we believe introducing a program to invite publicly declared delegates to increase quality delegates and incentivizing them based on particular conditions to improve the voting process in the Lido DAO should be a huge step towards better decentralized governance.

We’ve been supporting Lido’s staking decentralization, and we consider this proposal necessary to achieve that.

We believe the dedicated and capable actor that focuses on operations, strategy alignment and key coordinations is clearly demanded in the DAO governance, and Entropy has proven to be the one in Arbitrum. We are very excited to have them exclusively work with Arbitrum DAO. We have similar concerns about the hiring part, which is rare for this kind of proposals. We would ask them to consider a short-term pilot project with the currently hired or to-be-hired members to further prove the results that they can provide, but we would still vote for the proposal on Tally even as it is because we believe it’s practically better to have Entropy with a little over-budget rather than losing them or delaying them to fully focus on their operations.

David Bolger: An obvious choice. His experience and context are much needed for the role as a Growth / BD Expert. Karthik Raju: As a Venture Expert, he stands out the most and is best suitable for the role. Greg Canessa: He has the most relevant experiences when it comes to supporting the GCP initiative as an Operations Expert. Devansh Mehta: His contributions to the STEP were impressive and we recognize him as a great addition as a Gov Expert for the GCP initiative.

Economically and practically, allowing new Orbit chains on any blockchain that demand the technology built by OCL and managed by the Foundation and DAO makes sense. We believe it’s beneficial especially for more Stylus uses, which will lead to the world where developers can easily deploy their applications on the established environment. However, since Arbitrum is Ethereum-aligned as clearly stated as its first community value, the Foundation and OCL should still prioritize the development and integration with the chains that are settled on Ethereum L1. Of course, there are various perspectives when it comes to defining “Ethereum-aligned” but settling on Ethereum L1 should be the most important value that “Ethereum” provides and it’s still valued in the decision making process by the Arbitrum members.

As we have posted here, we believe that Gnosis Chain will benefit from more participation and contribution from the Uniswap side. We believe that $250k is a reasonable incentive amount because Linea and Scroll, which have larger TVLs than Gnosis Chain, received $250k in incentives from https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-revitalization-and-growth/22616 3, and we believe that Gnosis Chain should follow the similar amount to them.

Since we approved the EGG request including the 180k LDO transfer, we approve the transfer in this onchain voting and same for the Expanding the Simple DVT Module request.

We maintain the decision on Snapshot and continue to express the support for the program. We are looking forward to the outcome generated by the team and contributors!

As DisruptionJoe described, this can work in collaboration with the Firestarters program in the form of a Questbook grant program that requires a domain allocator elected by the DAO to manage the fund. We would like plurality in this kind of problem areas and look forward to seeing more quality proposals on critical issues/problems created by the programs.

We chose the requests because we believe they are the most critical to achieve the Intent 3A goal: increase the active developers with quality projects/platforms with the allocated fund.

We choose those requests because either technical solutions or research/analysis are critical to increase the votable supply.

Supporting the OP chains is one of the important Intents in S6 and we are in full support of achieve the goal with the allocated budget.

We voted for the option, "8 weeks and $2.5M fund" and maintain the stance for the onchain proposal. It's critical for the DAO to allocate the fund for the smaller projects with security considered. We also appreciate the ADPC team for accommodating the feedback from the delegates and pushing through the proposal to get started.

As described in our feedback to the original proposal, we had concerns on the approval process and criteria but Entropy team provided the updated proposal, which is reasonable to us, and since we see the Optimism Collective has applied this system in a slightly different form and it works to some extent, we believe it's worth trying it at least as a trial. We also understand that the current form works as expected (a few proposals are rejected on Snapshot as temp-checks), and only improving predicability is already a reasonable improvement for the governance.

We believe the program is a great step to experiment the treasury diversification and trust the committee’s recommendations of the providers. We are also curious about the reporting mechanism and how the DAO can continuously review how the investments work.

We voted for this proposal, as it protects Lido DAO from a potential default judgment, which could have serious negative consequences, including potential web infrastructure takedowns, delisting of LDO from trading venues, and creating precedents that could be used in future legal actions against Lido DAO or similar entities.

See Expanding the Simple DVT Module and LIP-22: stETH on L2 — wstETH on Optimism bridge endpoints upgrade

This proposal outlines the major grant requests for the half-year period as follows: - 24.6m DAI + 180k LDO in grant continuity for the Lido Contributor’s Group - 7.1m DAI in grant continuity for the Liquidity Observation Lab - 400k DAI for the Community Lifeguard initiative These are essential initiatives for achieving the goals set by GOOSE and reGOOSE, and we support this proposal.

This is a proposal to establish a vault with additional incentives provided by Obol, SSV and the DVT modules of Lido. This initiative aims to encourage stakers to deposit into SDVT validators, thereby expanding the share of SDVT. We support this proposal as SDVT is one of the most critical efforts to enhance decentralization in Lido's staking and this proposal would surely promote this initiative faster.

This proposal suggests organizing CLI as a subcommittee of LEGO with a budget of approximately 200k USD per quarter. CLI aims to invigorate community activities and increase the number of contributors, such as community stakers, by managing community programs, creating content for community stakers, and identifying and supporting grant opportunities. This initiative is crucial for enhancing the decentralization of Lido and expanding a diverse base of contributors. We support this proposal.

Currently, wstETH is deployed on various L2 networks. In addition to this, this is a proposal to make stETH available on L2 as well. By utilizing existing bridges and wrapping wstETH on L2, stETH can be used on L2 networks. Ensuring that stETH maintains the same utility on L2 as it does on L1 is crucial for user experience, and we support this proposal.

We thought $500k was the best amount at the time of the snapshot as written in https://gov.uniswap.org/t/arbitrum-ltipp-incentive-matching/24066/15?u=tane, but the collaboration with Arbitrum is important to Uniswap and we think $750k matching is a reasonable amount.

We vote to select the members below based on their contributions, and the fact that they have deep knowledge and context about the DAO.

We simply believe it crams all the conceptual ideas into one proposal with a high operational cost without track record or clear and foreseeable deliverables to be proven to the stakeholders in Arbitrum, while understanding the reasoning behind all of them into one. We also believe what to aim to achieve is valid and broken-down initiatives can be considered worth a try. We’d look forward to continuous bets from the team.

It was tough to choose from candidates with great applications. We value the mix of leadership (Ed), specialized skills (Blockdev for ZK, philogy for auditing), and communication/collaboration/high-context knowledge with the Collective (anika, noah and wbnns) and vote for them accordingly.

We expected more lower budget increases as discussed in the forum, but appreciate their effort and recognize the need to continue CoCC operation in a continuous way. We will vote against future proposals that only increase budget without consideration of the feedback from delegates, though.

With the new intent featuring the Superchain strategy and considering the proper participation from the participating chains is necessary for the appropriate "collective" governance, we believe the amendment and the expansion of it are appropriate.

The amendment and clarification make sense and we support continuity of ACC.

We have reviewed the specs and the summary of the changes in the call. RIP-7212 change leads to a better UX and we are great to see this and other improvements including the new compression implementation in this upgrade.

We also suggest that separating the research work with limited scopes and budgets first from the whole R&D proposal is a great first step for the further considerations within the DAO to achieve what this proposal originally aimed to do. As Joseph seemingly has already agreed with the general direction, we appreciate all the effort so far from the OD team and look forward to the revised proposal in the near future.

We appreciate and support their interest from Anthias Labs that has experiences in supporting the grants and providing tools for risk monitoring , and continuous support from SEED Latam team in the program.

We are impressed about what Juan has provided and achieved in the Collective, its GC and other prominent DAOs including Uniswap and Arbitrum and what Murphy has been providing with Karma and his service to the Optimism GC.

We appreciate all the work and contributions that the Season 5 council Growth Experiments and Builders members and recognize continuous support from them in Season 6. Aside from them, we choose Jrocki, brichis, Sov and ourselves for the new members given the relevancy, expertises and contributions to the Collective so far.

BoLD unlocks permissionless validations for the Arbitrum chains, which a great step and technological feat provided by Offchain Labs. While we need to review the economical incentive that is also sustainable for a more diversified set of operators to join in the future, we are in 100% support of the proposal and implementation of it as it stands.

It makes sense to subsidize the first operator running the BoLD validator and cover the operation costs by the DAO. Although the DAO will need a more sustainable model to attract operators running BoLD, we support the fund as it stands.

It makes sense to support the Foundation to bootstrap the first BoLD validator as the trusted and honest party. It’s also great to confirm that the Foundation will equip themselves with a team of operators running a node with help from Offchain Labs.

We chose Stakehouse because their extensive experience and track record stand out quite a bit. We believe the higher fee is justified with the outcomes that they should be able to bring. We also chose Avantgarde because of their expertise and their balanced fee structure. We believe both entities should be able to offer great services as the first Arbitrum STEP Program Manager.

We appreciate the AVI team’s effort and approach to address feedback from the delegates. While we still believe potential overlap would be found through the course and as DAO, we need to evaluate if this initiative should be prioritized and funded in a big scale, the budget ask is reasonable enough for a capable and passionate team to start the pilot phase to explore the opportunities.

We maintained the vote from Snapshot as we believe increasing the threshold to 9/12 is the vital first step to improve the system to achieve the revised Stage1 designation.

We maintained our Snapshot vote to fund 500k ARB each as we are generally supportive of the initiative and consider it important for the Arbitrum DAO to contribute to the cause.

We appreciate all the effort by the contributors for the past 6 months and believe in the needs to focus more on building strong ecosystem in the gaming category. There are obviously a few concerns that were already discussed in the thread and the X Space held today, but we are confident that the appointed GCP council, GCP team and Foundation incorporate feedback from the DAO and advisors and appropriately oversee the progress of the initiative.

RIP-7212 has been well-supported by the community and other L2 will certainly introduce it on their chains. This enables more secure smart wallets to be easily utilized on the L2 environments, which is a clear win for the better UX.

Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers. We’d hope that the technology will be integrated into other L2 chains so that the smart contract composability will remain as we have on the EVM platforms.

We consider it rather a fix to apply the change and simplify the fee related operations for the DAO.

We also believe the ADPC can handle the operations and the governance minimization matters especially in the Arbitrum DAO. If the ADPC didn’t account for the operations, we’d consider an additional small funding can be an option.

This not only enhances the decentralization and security of Lido's Node Operators but also improves the economics for Node Operators participating in DVT. Therefore, we support this proposal.

As this proposal will lead to further strengthening of the robustness of the Lido protocol, we vote in favor of it.

As DeFi activities centered around LST expand beyond the Ethereum mainnet, partnerships like this, which address cross-chain compatibility, help meet the growing needs of LST-based DeFi activities. Therefore, we vote in favor of this proposal.

We believe that as a member of the Lido Alliance, Mellow can contribute to the growth of the Lido ecosystem by expanding the utility of stETH.

We vote FOR the proposal while we recognize controversial perspectives around this one-off incentives request, but as it can be considered as a great opportunity for the Arbitrum ecosystem to grow, we would like to approve this funding as we voted for the Curve proposal. We also appreciate all the efforts to address the feedback from the delegates and modify the proposal to the ideal state of it under the DAO’s framework (LTIPP). Our concern is around how the protocol can retain users after the incentives program end. Eventually, we should see how it turns out, but we are particularly looking forward to their committed developments for the Arbitrum native products and ongoing treatments to achieve the success of their multi-chain strategy.

While we strongly recommend the council to reconsider the rewards, the intention of the council’s inception should be valued and without a particular structure or proposal that is sustainable to address the CoC related matters, we should keep the council running.

We appreciate and value the work the LTIPP council has done, and continuous effort the council will put in for the DAO. We also like the challenge process done in the STIP bridge process, but not necessarily a dealbreaker for the proposal to be passed or not.

Introducing the long-waited fault proofs is clearly one of the most important steps that Optimism should take. Considering the comments from Mofi, we vote FOR the proposal and rely on the coordination with the security council and OP Labs for the timing of the deployment.

Focused fundings on the new Intent to grow the Superchain makes sense strategically. Supporting the chain-specific grants programs is an interesting approach. We fully support the Intents and their budgets and look forward to the impacts that they make.

We vote FOR the proposal because it’s essential for the Collective to support a well-established grant system and adjust the rewards based on the increased works and scopes to take on. Organizing a grant system with an appropriate structure is an incredible feat and should be valued. We are excited to see the measurements that the new Grant Council can achieve with updated Intents. OP Chain grants programs are something we particularly look forward.

While we appreciate Ed's additional requirements to be presented, less budget increases with the current scope of work led by Zach makes sense to us.

All of the proposed Intents make perfect sense. Excited to see Intent 2 can make impact on the growth of Optimism ecosystem.

It’s a minor, but important fix to improve the advanced delegation on Agora.

It’s great to see the continuous efforts to improve on the security, integrity and decentralization of the rollup.

We vote FOR the proposal at its Snapshot phase with the additional report included as the first selection. As described, this change will clearly increase the efficiency of the similar operations for the various initiatives. We would also like to see the election and term systems to be included in the Tally voting as suggested by other delegates. We don’t necessarily mind 1 year term, but it would be good to see staggered signer terms (e.g. 6 people cycles in 6 months.)

Described in the page

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally because we believe it’s important to provide a non-developer friendly UI to force transaction inclusions possibly regardless of sequencer being down or not for less trust assumptions.

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally because it’s very well-considered and positive to both of Arbitrum and Curve ecosystems as a whole. Additional commitments from Michael is great as well.

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally as the same reason provided in the Snapshot voting. We also understand that the deliverables that the team focuses on are as described, and our requested information will be delivered afterwards.

With the ReGOOSE update by hasu, we believe establishing the Lido Alliance would lead the direction toward a more decentralized and safer Ethereum ecosystem.

The proposal addresses key issues that are essential for Lido DAO’s future strategy.

We appreciate all the work the working group has produced and consider it rational to extend the research with a reasonable budget assigned to the passionate operator.

Same as the off-chain one

it’s clearly addressed the feedback on the Subsidy Fund proposal, the selection of the firm, DeDaub is solid (Excellent works with recognized projects), and the cost seems reasonable.

We generally agree with GFX Labs’ take on the process of having the applications immediately after the official application period. While there are some good ones, we believe they should have waited for the next round of the grant program (either the next LTIPP or a permanent program) to be ready. Only Curve one is an exception as it’s not marked as an LTIPP application and huge commitment promised by the Curve founder with a well-crafted application.

The proposal has been updated with additional commitments from the LTIPP advisors and promised program manager role as well as the data and audit reports by OBL for us to evaluate the results by the STIP and optimistically approve the additional fundings.

GovHack in ETHDenver was a success in terms of connecting the delegates, contributors and core team members (Foundation and OCL) to have a opportunity to gather and discuss important topics in the Arbitrum DAO. We enjoyed the event as a whole and fully support the succeeding one in Brussels.

While we vote for this option to signal the support for the overall initiative, we expect it to be revised by incorporating feedback

We generally support the initiative while the exact amount for the Arbitrum DAO to offer can be discussed more before the on-chain voting

We consider this proposal as a good experiment to enhance the powers that retail users have with the leverage powered by the product aligned with the Arbitrum vision.

Same as Renew GateSeal for the Withdrawal Queue and Validator Exit Bus Oracle

The intension, implementation and audit reports look all good. We support the new addition to the governance system.

We assume this proposal was created based on careful considerations by the Grants Council and contributors and it’s generally considered optimal to reallocate unused funds to the needed area

Chose candidates for 1) Arbitrum codebase expert (fred) 2) security expert (Certora) 3) Arbitrum ecosystem expert (bartek.eth from L2BEAT) based on background diversity, technical capabilities and geographical diversity. 4k for bartek, 4k for Certora, and other 5k+ for fred.

We vote FOR the continuation of the program and the updated compensations for DA and PM as we did at its temp check voting. We have also confirmed that Questbook team suggest annual re-elections of the members which was a concern at the Snapshot phase and appropriately addressed in the forum.

We vote FOR the proposal while we understand that having trust-minimized options for unexpected emergencies is crucial to keep the protocol safe and that Lido is still on the way to achieve making them into protocols

Because of clear guidance provided by the council, we vote for most of the protocols besides some exceptions described in the the page.

We’d like to express full support of the initiative that covers a list of necessary improvements to be done for the better DAO operations by all parties and we are looking forward to seeing a great DAO tooling product thrive with the growth of the Arbitrum DAO.

We recognize the contributions by the early contributors and consider the rewards reasonable as a one-off.

Great step to experiment treasury diversifications with a group of experienced service providers to lead the program

Voted for Jordan from Event Horizon as other prominent candidates are already qualified for the next round

We vote against it because we believe it's simply too rushed and more analysis is required for the experiment to be funded further.

We appreciate the effort that PL has put in and agree with the lessons that they will address with the renewed budget and structure.

The proposal covers a list of necessary improvements to be done for the better DAO operations by all parties and we are looking forward to seeing a great DAO tooling product thrive with the growth of the Arbitrum DAO.

While the budget appears huge, the Arbitrum DAO needs to catch up with other L2 to make it home for the gaming projects and the initiative is much needed for the purpose.

We understand this is an important step for the automation to achieve further decentralization

While we have several questions to be answered, we vote for the proposal since we agree with its general direction.

As delegation has been proven to work well in the other DAOs, this is a great step for a better governance of Lido.

As it has been proven to be the best approach to prioritize the native bridges to avoid liquidity fragmentation, we consider this approach to deploy wstETH should be the right decision.

We highly appreciate efforts made for the investigation by the team, and we believe this is a part of the process of making secure system.

We believe it’s important to provide a non-developer friendly UI to force transaction inclusions and WakeUp team should be able to provide this with reasonable compensations.

We support the continuation of the program and the updated compensations for DA and PM. We also echo others who mentioned that the renewal of the DAs should be discussed and up for election in the future.

We are voting in favor of “Set L1 Surplus Fee and L2 Minimum Base Fee” because we believe DAO should prioritize UX over revenue at this moment.

40% each on Trail of Bits and OpenZeppelin, renowned security experts and 20% on Halborn who has started being involved in Arbitrum DAO with their great track record.

We are in favor of electing Chaos Labs because their track record related to risk assessment is great and the only candidate.

100% on L2BEAT/Ant Federation because what L2BEAT has done to Arbitrum and the ecosystem is amazing and a great candidate working with Ant Federation.

100% on Blockworks/Delphi because members who are more dedicated to Arbitrum DAO are involved while The Block is a prominent candidate for the Research Member

We are voting for the proposal because we are in full support of the activation that adopts EIP-4844 blobs to see a drastic reductions in transaction fees and additional changes to the OP stack from the L1 Dencun improvements.

We are in support of the proposed specs and implementations. The audit results are good to proceed without small fixes. While we think this change doesn't have to be passed with the Ecotone change, we vote for the proposal.

ICP is a good addition to the dYdX market.

While we see some improvements to be done by the newly formed EDP team especially on the transparent reporting, we support the program to continuously support the dYdX ecosystem.

We appreciate the effort by Offchain Labs to support EIP-4844 swiftly for the upcoming mainnet release and are confident these improvements make positive impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem.

The motivation and implementations are reasonable and we believe this change leads to a better election process of the Security Council members.

EOS is a reasonable addition to the dYdX market

ORDI is an interesting one and good to be in the dYdX market

JTO is a great addition to the dYdX market

We are in support of the proposal that makes governance more accessible to improvements of the dYdX chain.

We believe new members are great addition to the DOT

As stated in our snapshot voting, we believe the pilot program has been improved with new actors and considerable thoughts and effort so that it will make impact to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Voted for all requests except for 3B (We'd wait for the impact made by WLTA), 3C (Not quite clear what it can achieve with a huge budget), 3D (Abstain as a dYdX delegate), 3M (Not quite sure if it's worth a mission request)

All mission requests have potentials that make impact per token spent.

The intention to the main changes is reasonable. The specs look good. Other two changes (a fix on a potential issue during an upgrade and token creation related changes) look also good (though the third change seems unrelated to the main changes.)

Voted for all requests except for 2K (we’d see if ETHCC one succeeds), 2C (better with Foundation support) and 2I (Agreed with Krzysztof on focusing on phase 1 with less budget)

All of those development related requests are promising to make impact depending on applications.

We believe BNB market is a great addition to the dYdX chain

We believe AAVE market is a great addition to the market

This should be evaluated based on a specific framework and by a group of members who are experienced in gaming and its grant system.

We appreciate all the work put by Arbiters during the launch of Arbitrum, but are against their retro rewards because 1) they have already received some compensations from the Foundation. 2) there were no key measurements or criteria set for the rewards when it comes to managing the Discord community. It should have been clearly discussed beforehand with the Foundation or whoever manages the Discord or local communities.

Both changes make sense and the code is simple with unit tests and audit by ToB.