Note: this proposal will be subject to an individual Snapshot vote; if it reaches a quorum of 3% of votable $ARB, it may be combined with several other maintenance-related proposals for a joint Tally vote.
This proposal seeks to disable the legacy USDT bridge for Arbitrum One, given the activation of the new USDT0 bridge in January 2025. While the majority of crosschain volume has migrated to the new USDT0 bridge, the legacy USDT bridge is still technically enabled. This proposal seeks to disable the legacy bridge entirely, rather than continue with the current configuration which subjects depositors to a week-long delay and risks loss of funds if the depositor is a smart contract.
Historically, the existing USDT bridge for Arbitrum One was the primary path for bridging Tether to and from Arbitrum One. The new USDT0 standard introduced a modernized alternative that has become the go-to solution. However, the legacy USDT bridge is still technically enabled, which presents several issues.
First, withdrawals from the legacy bridge to L1 are subject to a seven-day delay, which is meaningfully slower than the new USDT0 bridge which can process bridge transactions in seconds or minutes. Also, once this delay has elapsed, deposits are auto-withdrawn on L1. This inconvenience can be addressed by disabling the legacy bridge and directing users exclusively to the new USDT0 bridge.
Second, user funds could be lost if a smart contract deposits to the legacy bridge on their behalf. The legacy bridge is currently configured to auto-withdraw funds as soon as possible back to the depositor; however, this auto-withdraw configuration can cause problems for smart contracts that deposit on behalf of end users but do not have withdrawal or refund functionality. While it’s possible to recover funds in this scenario, it is certainly sub-optimal for smart contract operators and end users that delegate to them. Disabling the legacy bridge prevents smart contracts from encountering this issue and putting funds at risk. Also, once the legacy bridge is disabled, any transaction submitted to it will simply revert; this applies to third party integrations as well as direct user interactions.
USDT0: Tether’s new OFT-based version of USDT; more details here
DisableGatewayAction: A smart contract action that disables a gateway for a specified token from the L1GatewayRouter; the DisableGatewayAction source code can be found here
Deactivate Legacy Bridge: execute the ‘perform’ function on the DisableGatewayAction contract, disabling legacy USDT on the L1GatewayRouter contract
If this proposal passes a Snapshot vote successfully, it will be combined with other maintenance-related proposals for a unified Tally vote and on-chain payload. The portion of the Tally payload that covers the actions described in this proposal will be shared as soon as each individual proposal passes a Snapshot vote.
The following timeline outlines proposed milestones from initial discussions to full implementation. Adjustments may be made based on community feedback and DAO governance requirements.
Note: this proposal will be subject to an individual Snapshot vote; if it reaches a quorum of 3% of votable $ARB, it may be combined with several other maintenance-related proposals for a joint Tally vote.
This proposal seeks to disable the legacy USDT bridge for Arbitrum One, given the activation of the new USDT0 bridge in January 2025. While the majority of crosschain volume has migrated to the new USDT0 bridge, the legacy USDT bridge is still technically enabled. This proposal seeks to disable the legacy bridge entirely, rather than continue with the current configuration which subjects depositors to a week-long delay and risks loss of funds if the depositor is a smart contract.
Historically, the existing USDT bridge for Arbitrum One was the primary path for bridging Tether to and from Arbitrum One. The new USDT0 standard introduced a modernized alternative that has become the go-to solution. However, the legacy USDT bridge is still technically enabled, which presents several issues.
First, withdrawals from the legacy bridge to L1 are subject to a seven-day delay, which is meaningfully slower than the new USDT0 bridge which can process bridge transactions in seconds or minutes. Also, once this delay has elapsed, deposits are auto-withdrawn on L1. This inconvenience can be addressed by disabling the legacy bridge and directing users exclusively to the new USDT0 bridge.
Second, user funds could be lost if a smart contract deposits to the legacy bridge on their behalf. The legacy bridge is currently configured to auto-withdraw funds as soon as possible back to the depositor; however, this auto-withdraw configuration can cause problems for smart contracts that deposit on behalf of end users but do not have withdrawal or refund functionality. While it’s possible to recover funds in this scenario, it is certainly sub-optimal for smart contract operators and end users that delegate to them. Disabling the legacy bridge prevents smart contracts from encountering this issue and putting funds at risk. Also, once the legacy bridge is disabled, any transaction submitted to it will simply revert; this applies to third party integrations as well as direct user interactions.
USDT0: Tether’s new OFT-based version of USDT; more details here
DisableGatewayAction: A smart contract action that disables a gateway for a specified token from the L1GatewayRouter; the DisableGatewayAction source code can be found here
Deactivate Legacy Bridge: execute the ‘perform’ function on the DisableGatewayAction contract, disabling legacy USDT on the L1GatewayRouter contract
If this proposal passes a Snapshot vote successfully, it will be combined with other maintenance-related proposals for a unified Tally vote and on-chain payload. The portion of the Tally payload that covers the actions described in this proposal will be shared as soon as each individual proposal passes a Snapshot vote.
The following timeline outlines proposed milestones from initial discussions to full implementation. Adjustments may be made based on community feedback and DAO governance requirements.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/29?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/28
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/29?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/28
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/27
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-123): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-123
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-123): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-123
For, Disabling the legacy bridge enhances transparency and efficiency by streamlining USDT transactions, empowering decentralized technology and ensuring seamless governance on Arbitrum.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/26?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/11?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/22
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/20?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/21?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/19?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/9?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/18?u=maxlomu
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/27
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-123): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-123
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-123): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-123
For, Disabling the legacy bridge enhances transparency and efficiency by streamlining USDT transactions, empowering decentralized technology and ensuring seamless governance on Arbitrum.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/26?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/11?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/22
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/20?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/21?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/19?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/9?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/18?u=maxlomu
Great clarification, thanks! I think what confused me was the part about users potentially losing funds. Technically, if the legacy USDT contract has already been upgraded, users shouldn't be able to transfer or use it anymore, which is why the warning initially alarmed me a bit.
That said, it’s now clear that the main action left is to safely deactivate the Arbitrum USDT legacy bridge for users.
Great clarification, thanks! I think what confused me was the part about users potentially losing funds. Technically, if the legacy USDT contract has already been upgraded, users shouldn't be able to transfer or use it anymore, which is why the warning initially alarmed me a bit.
That said, it’s now clear that the main action left is to safely deactivate the Arbitrum USDT legacy bridge for users.
Still, I’d appreciate a bit more clarity: Are users currently at any risk if they use the official Arbitrum USDT bridge? I’m not even sure whether it's still usable after the upgrade or not.
If the USDT0 bridge already exists and was implemented without a DAO vote, solely through an agreement between Tether and Offchain Labs, then why is this current proposal being brought to a vote?
If the USDT0 bridge already exists and was implemented without a DAO vote, solely through an agreement between Tether and Offchain Labs, then why is this current proposal being brought to a vote?
Hey ! Just wanted to jump into the discussion because I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The USDT0 bridge mentioned is a solution developed by Tether; it does not use Arbitrum's canonical (official) bridge. There is no need to submit this implementation to a vote, as it is not a product controlled by the Arbitrum DAO.
I’d also like to ask: will there be any broad public communication about this change on social media or community channels? Many bots, integrations, or custom frontends may still be relying on the legacy bridge, and awareness is key to avoiding user errors or fund loss
USDT0 standard or unsure how to swap from legacy USDT to USDT0 or how to exit to L1 if needed.
Would it be possible to:
With a quick search on X, I was able to find official announcements from the Arbitrum account:
https://x.com/arbitrum/status/1884270274008453607
Additionally, in the same Mirror article that was shared in this post, the following is stated:
I hope my answer is helpful
Hi team, thanks for putting together this important proposal and for clearly outlining the motivation and technical plan to disable the legacy USDT bridge.
As a regular user and community participant, I just want to kindly suggest that some additional effort be made on the communications side to help users transition smoothly. While the technical rationale is sound, many users may still be unaware of the new USDT0 standard or unsure how to swap from legacy USDT to USDT0 or how to exit to L1 if needed.
Hi team, thanks for putting together this important proposal and for clearly outlining the motivation and technical plan to disable the legacy USDT bridge.
As a regular user and community participant, I just want to kindly suggest that some additional effort be made on the communications side to help users transition smoothly. While the technical rationale is sound, many users may still be unaware of the new USDT0 standard or unsure how to swap from legacy USDT to USDT0 or how to exit to L1 if needed.
Would it be possible to:
Good communication will go a long way in reducing friction and preventing user frustration or fund loss. This is the only area I feel could be improved in an otherwise well-considered proposal. Thanks again for the work you're doing to make Arbitrum more robust and secure.
We’ve reviewed the payload, and have verified that the payload accomplishes what the proposal text states - disabling the legacy Tether bridge. As always, we also welcome the results of others’ independent review, as applicable.
Great clarification, thanks! I think what confused me was the part about users potentially losing funds. Technically, if the legacy USDT contract has already been upgraded, users shouldn't be able to transfer or use it anymore, which is why the warning initially alarmed me a bit.
That said, it’s now clear that the main action left is to safely deactivate the Arbitrum USDT legacy bridge for users.
Great clarification, thanks! I think what confused me was the part about users potentially losing funds. Technically, if the legacy USDT contract has already been upgraded, users shouldn't be able to transfer or use it anymore, which is why the warning initially alarmed me a bit.
That said, it’s now clear that the main action left is to safely deactivate the Arbitrum USDT legacy bridge for users.
Still, I’d appreciate a bit more clarity: Are users currently at any risk if they use the official Arbitrum USDT bridge? I’m not even sure whether it's still usable after the upgrade or not.
If the USDT0 bridge already exists and was implemented without a DAO vote, solely through an agreement between Tether and Offchain Labs, then why is this current proposal being brought to a vote?
If the USDT0 bridge already exists and was implemented without a DAO vote, solely through an agreement between Tether and Offchain Labs, then why is this current proposal being brought to a vote?
Hey ! Just wanted to jump into the discussion because I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The USDT0 bridge mentioned is a solution developed by Tether; it does not use Arbitrum's canonical (official) bridge. There is no need to submit this implementation to a vote, as it is not a product controlled by the Arbitrum DAO.
I’d also like to ask: will there be any broad public communication about this change on social media or community channels? Many bots, integrations, or custom frontends may still be relying on the legacy bridge, and awareness is key to avoiding user errors or fund loss
USDT0 standard or unsure how to swap from legacy USDT to USDT0 or how to exit to L1 if needed.
Would it be possible to:
With a quick search on X, I was able to find official announcements from the Arbitrum account:
https://x.com/arbitrum/status/1884270274008453607
Additionally, in the same Mirror article that was shared in this post, the following is stated:
I hope my answer is helpful
Hi team, thanks for putting together this important proposal and for clearly outlining the motivation and technical plan to disable the legacy USDT bridge.
As a regular user and community participant, I just want to kindly suggest that some additional effort be made on the communications side to help users transition smoothly. While the technical rationale is sound, many users may still be unaware of the new USDT0 standard or unsure how to swap from legacy USDT to USDT0 or how to exit to L1 if needed.
Hi team, thanks for putting together this important proposal and for clearly outlining the motivation and technical plan to disable the legacy USDT bridge.
As a regular user and community participant, I just want to kindly suggest that some additional effort be made on the communications side to help users transition smoothly. While the technical rationale is sound, many users may still be unaware of the new USDT0 standard or unsure how to swap from legacy USDT to USDT0 or how to exit to L1 if needed.
Would it be possible to:
Good communication will go a long way in reducing friction and preventing user frustration or fund loss. This is the only area I feel could be improved in an otherwise well-considered proposal. Thanks again for the work you're doing to make Arbitrum more robust and secure.
We’ve reviewed the payload, and have verified that the payload accomplishes what the proposal text states - disabling the legacy Tether bridge. As always, we also welcome the results of others’ independent review, as applicable.
The USDT0 upgrade occurred in January and indirectly impacted the legacy bridge by making it non-canonical and subject to eventual deprecation. Communications have already been sent out across public channels, encouraging integrators to migrate from the legacy bridge to USDT0. Since then, efforts have been made to actively monitor the legacy bridge and provide general support as appropriate. The exact time and date of the legacy bridge deprecation are not yet known, as it depends on when this proposal is eligible for execution after a successful Tally vote. A final notice will be sent across the relevant channels once those details are available.
Note that using the legacy bridge for USDT deposits currently doesn't work as expected because the legacy bridge automatically withdraws the USDT back to the original address. So, changing this behavior should only impact applications that are already not working as intended.
The Tether team, at its discretion, upgraded its token contract to USDT0. This disconnected the token from the native bridge on Arbitrum One, resulting in users who bridged from the L1 not receiving their funds on the L2. Although those funds were recovered, it exposes potential edge cases where, in theory, funds may not be recoverable.
All known integrators of the legacy bridge have been notified of this change and have made the requisite changes, and public communications have already been broadcasted to reach integrators we may be unaware of. Once executed, no one should be able to interact with the legacy bridge and any attempted transactions should revert.
The Tether team, at its discretion, upgraded its token contract to USDT0. This disconnected the token from the native bridge on Arbitrum One, resulting in users who bridged from the L1 not receiving their funds on the L2. Although those funds were recovered, it exposes potential edge cases where, in theory, funds may not be recoverable.
All known integrators of the legacy bridge have been notified of this change and have made the requisite changes, and public communications have already been broadcasted to reach integrators we may be unaware of. Once executed, no one should be able to interact with the legacy bridge and any attempted transactions should revert.
The USDT upgrade was performed via upgrading the USDT token contracts themselves, which are not owned or controlled by the DAO. The SKY upgrade proposal is not a comparable example, since the technical methodology behind is entirely different, making use of the token bridge contracts to adjust how bridging is performed, which necessitates DAO approval.
From a legal and operational risk standpoint, keeping the legacy USDT bridge live introduces unnecessary liability and exposure. The current configuration not only delays user access but risks non-compliant handling of smart contract deposits, especially where refund mechanisms are absent. Disabling the bridge streamlines compliance, protects user funds, and aligns with industry best practices in consumer asset safety and protocol governance. It's a preventive legal upgrade as much as a technical one. Fully support this move.
To be clear, users should not use the legacy USDT bridge; the new USDT0 bridge is the only recommended path for bridging USDT to and from Arbitrum One. All known integrators of the legacy bridge have been notified of this change and have made the requisite changes, and public communications have already been broadcasted to reach integrators we may be unaware of. Once executed, no one should be able to interact with the legacy bridge and any attempted transactions should revert.
As stated in the motivation section, currently the legacy bridge should automatically withdraw funds to the account that initiated the deposit. Smart contracts that deposit through the legacy bridge experience additional complexities since the USDT will be returned to them on Ethereum, which they may or may not expect.
The USDT0 upgrade occurred in January and indirectly impacted the legacy bridge by making it non-canonical and subject to eventual deprecation. Communications have already been sent out across public channels, encouraging integrators to migrate from the legacy bridge to USDT0. Since then, efforts have been made to actively monitor the legacy bridge and provide general support as appropriate. The exact time and date of the legacy bridge deprecation are not yet known, as it depends on when this proposal is eligible for execution after a successful Tally vote. A final notice will be sent across the relevant channels once those details are available.
Note that using the legacy bridge for USDT deposits currently doesn't work as expected because the legacy bridge automatically withdraws the USDT back to the original address. So, changing this behavior should only impact applications that are already not working as intended.
The Tether team, at its discretion, upgraded its token contract to USDT0. This disconnected the token from the native bridge on Arbitrum One, resulting in users who bridged from the L1 not receiving their funds on the L2. Although those funds were recovered, it exposes potential edge cases where, in theory, funds may not be recoverable.
All known integrators of the legacy bridge have been notified of this change and have made the requisite changes, and public communications have already been broadcasted to reach integrators we may be unaware of. Once executed, no one should be able to interact with the legacy bridge and any attempted transactions should revert.
The Tether team, at its discretion, upgraded its token contract to USDT0. This disconnected the token from the native bridge on Arbitrum One, resulting in users who bridged from the L1 not receiving their funds on the L2. Although those funds were recovered, it exposes potential edge cases where, in theory, funds may not be recoverable.
All known integrators of the legacy bridge have been notified of this change and have made the requisite changes, and public communications have already been broadcasted to reach integrators we may be unaware of. Once executed, no one should be able to interact with the legacy bridge and any attempted transactions should revert.
The USDT upgrade was performed via upgrading the USDT token contracts themselves, which are not owned or controlled by the DAO. The SKY upgrade proposal is not a comparable example, since the technical methodology behind is entirely different, making use of the token bridge contracts to adjust how bridging is performed, which necessitates DAO approval.
From a legal and operational risk standpoint, keeping the legacy USDT bridge live introduces unnecessary liability and exposure. The current configuration not only delays user access but risks non-compliant handling of smart contract deposits, especially where refund mechanisms are absent. Disabling the bridge streamlines compliance, protects user funds, and aligns with industry best practices in consumer asset safety and protocol governance. It's a preventive legal upgrade as much as a technical one. Fully support this move.
To be clear, users should not use the legacy USDT bridge; the new USDT0 bridge is the only recommended path for bridging USDT to and from Arbitrum One. All known integrators of the legacy bridge have been notified of this change and have made the requisite changes, and public communications have already been broadcasted to reach integrators we may be unaware of. Once executed, no one should be able to interact with the legacy bridge and any attempted transactions should revert.
As stated in the motivation section, currently the legacy bridge should automatically withdraw funds to the account that initiated the deposit. Smart contracts that deposit through the legacy bridge experience additional complexities since the USDT will be returned to them on Ethereum, which they may or may not expect.
voted For on this onchain vote because these are all things that I’ve voted For before on their respective offchain votes. I do feel like these proposals should not be bundled together and that delegates should be provided a way to verify that the payload of the onchain proposals actually match what the proposal says.
voted For on this onchain vote because these are all things that I’ve voted For before on their respective offchain votes. I do feel like these proposals should not be bundled together and that delegates should be provided a way to verify that the payload of the onchain proposals actually match what the proposal says.
you guys deserve 30 Bonus Points just for this. thank you! cc/@SEEDGov
you guys deserve 30 Bonus Points just for this. thank you! cc/@SEEDGov
I have voted in favour of this proposal. Having multiple bridges is confusing, liquidity gets fragmented, and users don’t understand if they are getting a different version of the token they need to use. Having USDT’s official bridge usdt0 simplifies UX. Makes sense to deprecate legacy one.
Voting to disable, easy yes
I believe it’s important to close up ‘loose ends’ as new upgrades roll out. While there realistically is little risk, no sense in leaving that open. Nor should we create a scenario where using Tether’s product is more confusing then it needs to be for user experience improvement.
Voting to disable, easy yes
I believe it’s important to close up ‘loose ends’ as new upgrades roll out. While there realistically is little risk, no sense in leaving that open. Nor should we create a scenario where using Tether’s product is more confusing then it needs to be for user experience improvement.
Edit 9.4.2025: Editing to save forum space as my opinion has not changed since snapshot - I will be voting to approve on tally as this improves user expierence
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting ABSTAIN.
As we hinted in our original comment, we are abstaining from this vote. We offered a full breakdown of the points that led us to this decision here.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
The current on-chain proposal makes three sensible changes that improve sustainability, operations, and user safety. Removing the amortized cost cap on Arbitrum Nova aligns fees with real L1 posting costs after EIP-4844, ends a recurring subsidy, and fits Nova’s current role as Orbit adoption grows. Updating the DAO’s Upgrade Executors to include executeCall() reduces overhead for future upgrades while keeping execute() available, and the published Trail of Bits review on the new path gives comfort on security intent. Disabling the legacy USDT bridge and consolidating on USDT0 removes a source of confusion and edge-case risk for contracts that cannot handle the legacy auto-withdraw behavior.
We also want to acknowledge L2BEAT’s rationale and thank them for their technical review of the executable payload. Their team confirmed that the targets and params match the stated intent, that the DAO addresses and ProxyAdmin references match the deployment list, that the correct Inbox contracts are used for Arbitrum One and Nova, and that the constitutional L1 timelock and delay align with the execution timeline. We value this kind of independent payload verification. We also note their point about the tradeoffs of bundling. In principle, we prefer single-topic on-chain votes when feasible. In this case, we believe the net effect of the bundle is clearly positive and supports the DAO’s long-term interests, so we are comfortable voting FOR while recognizing that some delegates have reservations about the USDT0 trust assumptions separate from this execution.
The Nova change reduces deficits, the executor upgrade streamlines governance work, and the bridge change improves user safety. Taken together, the proposal strengthens the network’s sustainability and operational clarity. Hence, we will vote FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
During the temp-check stage, we supported the Removal of the Cost Cap on Nova and the Update of the Upgrade Executors, and we continue to support these changes for the onchain vote. On the other hand, we abstained on the Disable Legacy Tether Bridge proposal because we were not comfortable endorsing the USDT0 setup and the liveness and safety trust assumptions associated with it (you can read our full rationale here).
In our view, this concern does not prevent us from voting in favor of the broader package, as long as we’re clear that our favorable vote in the onchain vote does not translate to an endorsement of the USDT0 setup, just like in the off-chain vote.
However, on the occasion of this vote, we’d like to point out the obvious challenge of bundling proposals together for the onchain vote. If we had been fully opposed to the proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge, it would have made voting for this proposal impossible. We do understand that bundling proposals together saves time and makes it easier to meet quorum, but at the same time, it introduces different problems that are not necessarily outweighed.
Before casting our vote, and since it’s a technical proposal, we asked L2BEAT’s research team to review and confirm the contents of the executable payload. They confirmed that the contents matched the outlined changes, without adding anything that shouldn’t be there.
Here’s the breakdown of the changes reviewed and confirmed by our research team:
L1 (Ethereum):
targets[0] = UpgradeExecutor 0x3ffF...c3CeDd with payload
ProxyUpgradeAction.perform(ProxyAdmin 0x5613...0678, target 0x3ffF...c3CeDd, newLogic 0x3d745b...7932) → upgrades the L1 Upgrade Executor implementation to the new one. This address is listed in the DAO’s official deployment table.
Arbitrum One (via L1 Inbox 0x4dbd…AB3f):
targets[1] posts to Inbox → L2 call to UpgradeExecutor 0xCF57...A827 with
ProxyUpgradeAction.perform(ProxyAdmin 0xDB21...961e, target 0xCF57...A827, newLogic 0x3d745b...7932). Addresses match the DAO docs.
Arbitrum Nova (via L1 Inbox 0xC444…3949):
targets[2] posts to Inbox → L2 call to UpgradeExecutor 0x86a0...7482 with
ProxyUpgradeAction.perform(ProxyAdmin 0xF58e...C2b9, target 0x86a0...7482, newLogic 0x3d745b...7932). Addresses match the DAO docs.
L1 action:
targets[3] = DisableGatewayAction 0x8d34...4188f with
perform([USDT 0xdAC1...1ec7], _maxGas=0, _gasPriceBid=0, _maxSubmissionCost=5e14) and the batch’s only non-zero msg.value (values[3] = 500,000,000,000,000 wei) funding the retryable ticket. This matches the “Disable Legacy Tether Bridge” spec; the router address in the spec is the canonical L1GatewayRouter 0x72Ce...31ef.
L1→Nova call:
targets[4] posts to Nova Inbox → L2 call to UpgradeExecutor 0x86a0...7482 using executeCall to directly call the ArbOwner precompile 0x000...0070 with setAmortizedCostCapBips(0) , setting it to 0 is the documented way to remove/disable the cap.
Timelock details match
sendTxToL1(L1ArbitrumTimelock 0xE684...7f49, scheduleBatch(...)) is the right L1 timelock259,200 seconds = 3 days, which matches the constitutional L1 execution delay shown in the Tally timelineExtra checks
0x4dbd…AB3f) and Nova (0xC444…3949)voted For on this past offchain vote because its creating confusion right now.
Disabling the legacy bridge removes all of the negatives associated with its existence, while offering no real benefits in keeping it active. In my view, voting FOR in this case is the only reasonable choice.
Voting for. It’s not doing anything useful anymore, just going to confuse users… The UX of crypto is bad enough already without needing a bridge to a dead end.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support the proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge on Arbitrum One. Maintaining two bridging pathways creates unnecessary UX confusion and exposes smart contract users to risk. USDT0 is now the canonical, audited, and efficient path. This AIP is timely, technically sound, and helps future-proof the bridging infrastructure.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support the proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge on Arbitrum One. Maintaining two bridging pathways creates unnecessary UX confusion and exposes smart contract users to risk. USDT0 is now the canonical, audited, and efficient path. This AIP is timely, technically sound, and helps future-proof the bridging infrastructure.
We echo the proposer's suggestion that a clear communication plan accompany the change to minimize user disruption and ensure third-party integration awareness.
can we pretty please get some independent verification that the payload on the onchain proposal actually does what it says it does? @offchainlabs @Frisson @krst @GFXlabs and so on?
ideally, before more people vote on it without verifying it.
We voted in favor of this proposal, because maintaining the legacy USDT bridge introduces unnecessary risk without any practical benefit. By disabling it, we simplify user experience, protect against potential fund losses, and clearly signal that the safer and faster USDT0 bridge is the standard moving forward.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
As we mentioned earlier, the legacy USDT bridge has served its purpose and now creates more risk than value. With most of the liquidity already moved to USDT0, keeping the old bridge live only adds confusion and technical risk, especially for smart contracts and users unfamiliar with the differences.
That said, we still believe it’s important to communicate the change clearly before execution. A simple public timeline and guidance for developers and users would go a long way in making the transition smooth for everyone.
gm, voting FOR as a measure to protect users and prevent further bridging of funds via the canonical bridge. The decision by Tether to move to USDT0 is already made and not contingent on the DAO.
Voting FOR this proposal. The feature is already dysfunctional, so removing it is the most practical solution.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Disabling the legacy Tether bridge is the most optimal path forward, as it no longer meets current security and operational standards.
Since all known integrators have transitioned to the new USDT0 bridge, and clear public communications have been made, this is a necessary step to protect users and streamline the bridging experience.
I voted FOR this proposal. Tether moved away from the canonical bridge and having it still working brings no benefits for the DAO.
We acknowledge the logic behind this proposal and understand the benefits of disabling the legacy USDT bridge, particularly in reducing UX friction and preventing edge cases involving smart contracts and delayed withdrawals. From a technical maintenance perspective, this makes sense.
However, we’re choosing to abstain from this vote in alignment with concerns raised by @Sinkas
We acknowledge the logic behind this proposal and understand the benefits of disabling the legacy USDT bridge, particularly in reducing UX friction and preventing edge cases involving smart contracts and delayed withdrawals. From a technical maintenance perspective, this makes sense.
However, we’re choosing to abstain from this vote in alignment with concerns raised by @Sinkas
While the migration to USDT0 has already happened and most liquidity has moved accordingly, the decision to adopt LayerZero’s OFT-based bridge was made unilaterally by Tether and Offchain Labs, without any involvement from Arbitrum DAO. As a result, the DAO no longer controls the bridging infrastructure for one of the most widely used stablecoins on Arbitrum.
This proposal may appear procedural, but in effect, it formalizes a shift toward a bridging model with new trust assumptions, around lockbox ownership, verifier networks, and protocol-level upgradability, that were never openly discussed or approved by the DAO.
We are not opposed to cleaning up unused or problematic infrastructure, but we believe it’s important to be cautious about what our votes may implicitly signal. In this case, while disabling the legacy bridge seems reasonable, fully endorsing the current USDT0 setup without broader discussion on governance, control, and risk is something we’re not yet comfortable with.
For that reason, we’re abstaining.
I have voted FOR this proposal. This is the more logical things to do for users, and I trust AF to provide a clear and safe offboarding process.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We reviewed the proposal with the help of L2BEAT’s research team, and we wanted to share our internal discussion to potentially help delegates better assess the proposal. Currently, USDT on Arbitrum has been upgraded to USDT0, so all USDT value on Arbitrum, as far as L2BEAT is concerned, is considered externally bridged, as USDT0 is a LayerZero OFT token (see risks associated with OFT tokens here).
I have voted in favour of this proposal. Having multiple bridges is confusing, liquidity gets fragmented, and users don’t understand if they are getting a different version of the token they need to use. Having USDT’s official bridge usdt0 simplifies UX. Makes sense to deprecate legacy one.
Voting to disable, easy yes
I believe it’s important to close up ‘loose ends’ as new upgrades roll out. While there realistically is little risk, no sense in leaving that open. Nor should we create a scenario where using Tether’s product is more confusing then it needs to be for user experience improvement.
Voting to disable, easy yes
I believe it’s important to close up ‘loose ends’ as new upgrades roll out. While there realistically is little risk, no sense in leaving that open. Nor should we create a scenario where using Tether’s product is more confusing then it needs to be for user experience improvement.
Edit 9.4.2025: Editing to save forum space as my opinion has not changed since snapshot - I will be voting to approve on tally as this improves user expierence
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting ABSTAIN.
As we hinted in our original comment, we are abstaining from this vote. We offered a full breakdown of the points that led us to this decision here.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
The current on-chain proposal makes three sensible changes that improve sustainability, operations, and user safety. Removing the amortized cost cap on Arbitrum Nova aligns fees with real L1 posting costs after EIP-4844, ends a recurring subsidy, and fits Nova’s current role as Orbit adoption grows. Updating the DAO’s Upgrade Executors to include executeCall() reduces overhead for future upgrades while keeping execute() available, and the published Trail of Bits review on the new path gives comfort on security intent. Disabling the legacy USDT bridge and consolidating on USDT0 removes a source of confusion and edge-case risk for contracts that cannot handle the legacy auto-withdraw behavior.
We also want to acknowledge L2BEAT’s rationale and thank them for their technical review of the executable payload. Their team confirmed that the targets and params match the stated intent, that the DAO addresses and ProxyAdmin references match the deployment list, that the correct Inbox contracts are used for Arbitrum One and Nova, and that the constitutional L1 timelock and delay align with the execution timeline. We value this kind of independent payload verification. We also note their point about the tradeoffs of bundling. In principle, we prefer single-topic on-chain votes when feasible. In this case, we believe the net effect of the bundle is clearly positive and supports the DAO’s long-term interests, so we are comfortable voting FOR while recognizing that some delegates have reservations about the USDT0 trust assumptions separate from this execution.
The Nova change reduces deficits, the executor upgrade streamlines governance work, and the bridge change improves user safety. Taken together, the proposal strengthens the network’s sustainability and operational clarity. Hence, we will vote FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
During the temp-check stage, we supported the Removal of the Cost Cap on Nova and the Update of the Upgrade Executors, and we continue to support these changes for the onchain vote. On the other hand, we abstained on the Disable Legacy Tether Bridge proposal because we were not comfortable endorsing the USDT0 setup and the liveness and safety trust assumptions associated with it (you can read our full rationale here).
In our view, this concern does not prevent us from voting in favor of the broader package, as long as we’re clear that our favorable vote in the onchain vote does not translate to an endorsement of the USDT0 setup, just like in the off-chain vote.
However, on the occasion of this vote, we’d like to point out the obvious challenge of bundling proposals together for the onchain vote. If we had been fully opposed to the proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge, it would have made voting for this proposal impossible. We do understand that bundling proposals together saves time and makes it easier to meet quorum, but at the same time, it introduces different problems that are not necessarily outweighed.
Before casting our vote, and since it’s a technical proposal, we asked L2BEAT’s research team to review and confirm the contents of the executable payload. They confirmed that the contents matched the outlined changes, without adding anything that shouldn’t be there.
Here’s the breakdown of the changes reviewed and confirmed by our research team:
L1 (Ethereum):
targets[0] = UpgradeExecutor 0x3ffF...c3CeDd with payload
ProxyUpgradeAction.perform(ProxyAdmin 0x5613...0678, target 0x3ffF...c3CeDd, newLogic 0x3d745b...7932) → upgrades the L1 Upgrade Executor implementation to the new one. This address is listed in the DAO’s official deployment table.
Arbitrum One (via L1 Inbox 0x4dbd…AB3f):
targets[1] posts to Inbox → L2 call to UpgradeExecutor 0xCF57...A827 with
ProxyUpgradeAction.perform(ProxyAdmin 0xDB21...961e, target 0xCF57...A827, newLogic 0x3d745b...7932). Addresses match the DAO docs.
Arbitrum Nova (via L1 Inbox 0xC444…3949):
targets[2] posts to Inbox → L2 call to UpgradeExecutor 0x86a0...7482 with
ProxyUpgradeAction.perform(ProxyAdmin 0xF58e...C2b9, target 0x86a0...7482, newLogic 0x3d745b...7932). Addresses match the DAO docs.
L1 action:
targets[3] = DisableGatewayAction 0x8d34...4188f with
perform([USDT 0xdAC1...1ec7], _maxGas=0, _gasPriceBid=0, _maxSubmissionCost=5e14) and the batch’s only non-zero msg.value (values[3] = 500,000,000,000,000 wei) funding the retryable ticket. This matches the “Disable Legacy Tether Bridge” spec; the router address in the spec is the canonical L1GatewayRouter 0x72Ce...31ef.
L1→Nova call:
targets[4] posts to Nova Inbox → L2 call to UpgradeExecutor 0x86a0...7482 using executeCall to directly call the ArbOwner precompile 0x000...0070 with setAmortizedCostCapBips(0) , setting it to 0 is the documented way to remove/disable the cap.
Timelock details match
sendTxToL1(L1ArbitrumTimelock 0xE684...7f49, scheduleBatch(...)) is the right L1 timelock259,200 seconds = 3 days, which matches the constitutional L1 execution delay shown in the Tally timelineExtra checks
0x4dbd…AB3f) and Nova (0xC444…3949)voted For on this past offchain vote because its creating confusion right now.
Disabling the legacy bridge removes all of the negatives associated with its existence, while offering no real benefits in keeping it active. In my view, voting FOR in this case is the only reasonable choice.
Voting for. It’s not doing anything useful anymore, just going to confuse users… The UX of crypto is bad enough already without needing a bridge to a dead end.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support the proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge on Arbitrum One. Maintaining two bridging pathways creates unnecessary UX confusion and exposes smart contract users to risk. USDT0 is now the canonical, audited, and efficient path. This AIP is timely, technically sound, and helps future-proof the bridging infrastructure.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support the proposal to disable the legacy USDT bridge on Arbitrum One. Maintaining two bridging pathways creates unnecessary UX confusion and exposes smart contract users to risk. USDT0 is now the canonical, audited, and efficient path. This AIP is timely, technically sound, and helps future-proof the bridging infrastructure.
We echo the proposer's suggestion that a clear communication plan accompany the change to minimize user disruption and ensure third-party integration awareness.
can we pretty please get some independent verification that the payload on the onchain proposal actually does what it says it does? @offchainlabs @Frisson @krst @GFXlabs and so on?
ideally, before more people vote on it without verifying it.
We voted in favor of this proposal, because maintaining the legacy USDT bridge introduces unnecessary risk without any practical benefit. By disabling it, we simplify user experience, protect against potential fund losses, and clearly signal that the safer and faster USDT0 bridge is the standard moving forward.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
As we mentioned earlier, the legacy USDT bridge has served its purpose and now creates more risk than value. With most of the liquidity already moved to USDT0, keeping the old bridge live only adds confusion and technical risk, especially for smart contracts and users unfamiliar with the differences.
That said, we still believe it’s important to communicate the change clearly before execution. A simple public timeline and guidance for developers and users would go a long way in making the transition smooth for everyone.
gm, voting FOR as a measure to protect users and prevent further bridging of funds via the canonical bridge. The decision by Tether to move to USDT0 is already made and not contingent on the DAO.
Voting FOR this proposal. The feature is already dysfunctional, so removing it is the most practical solution.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Disabling the legacy Tether bridge is the most optimal path forward, as it no longer meets current security and operational standards.
Since all known integrators have transitioned to the new USDT0 bridge, and clear public communications have been made, this is a necessary step to protect users and streamline the bridging experience.
I voted FOR this proposal. Tether moved away from the canonical bridge and having it still working brings no benefits for the DAO.
We acknowledge the logic behind this proposal and understand the benefits of disabling the legacy USDT bridge, particularly in reducing UX friction and preventing edge cases involving smart contracts and delayed withdrawals. From a technical maintenance perspective, this makes sense.
However, we’re choosing to abstain from this vote in alignment with concerns raised by @Sinkas
We acknowledge the logic behind this proposal and understand the benefits of disabling the legacy USDT bridge, particularly in reducing UX friction and preventing edge cases involving smart contracts and delayed withdrawals. From a technical maintenance perspective, this makes sense.
However, we’re choosing to abstain from this vote in alignment with concerns raised by @Sinkas
While the migration to USDT0 has already happened and most liquidity has moved accordingly, the decision to adopt LayerZero’s OFT-based bridge was made unilaterally by Tether and Offchain Labs, without any involvement from Arbitrum DAO. As a result, the DAO no longer controls the bridging infrastructure for one of the most widely used stablecoins on Arbitrum.
This proposal may appear procedural, but in effect, it formalizes a shift toward a bridging model with new trust assumptions, around lockbox ownership, verifier networks, and protocol-level upgradability, that were never openly discussed or approved by the DAO.
We are not opposed to cleaning up unused or problematic infrastructure, but we believe it’s important to be cautious about what our votes may implicitly signal. In this case, while disabling the legacy bridge seems reasonable, fully endorsing the current USDT0 setup without broader discussion on governance, control, and risk is something we’re not yet comfortable with.
For that reason, we’re abstaining.
I have voted FOR this proposal. This is the more logical things to do for users, and I trust AF to provide a clear and safe offboarding process.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We reviewed the proposal with the help of L2BEAT’s research team, and we wanted to share our internal discussion to potentially help delegates better assess the proposal. Currently, USDT on Arbitrum has been upgraded to USDT0, so all USDT value on Arbitrum, as far as L2BEAT is concerned, is considered externally bridged, as USDT0 is a LayerZero OFT token (see risks associated with OFT tokens here).
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We reviewed the proposal with the help of L2BEAT’s research team, and we wanted to share our internal discussion to potentially help delegates better assess the proposal. Currently, USDT on Arbitrum has been upgraded to USDT0, so all USDT value on Arbitrum, as far as L2BEAT is concerned, is considered externally bridged, as USDT0 is a LayerZero OFT token (see risks associated with OFT tokens here).
If the proposed upgrade passes, it will prevent further bridging of Ethereum USDT to Arbitrum through the canonical custom gateway. Currently, most deposits flow through the LayerZero external bridge anyway, although there are indeed some sporadic deposits through the canonical bridge even after the migration (e.g., L1 deposit and L2 mint).
There are currently about $140,000 USDT in the gateway, while there’s more than $1,000,000,000 in the LayerZero lockbox. As you can see from the L2 mint transaction, canonically deposited USDT tokens are already minted as USDT0, so the Arbitrum holder trust assumption remains unchanged.
Disabling the legacy bridge will prevent users from using it, avoid the seven-day delay, and prevent any funds from being lost if the bridge is used by a smart contract on behalf of a user. These changes result in a better user experience with minimal effort.
Pushing users to an external bridge, however, is not entirely harmless, and it’s essential to unpack the nuance so delegates can make an informed decision. For example, if all USDT is in the L1 LayerZero lockbox, then withdrawing USDT depends on the DVN and the liveness of the lockbox owner. That trust assumption does not exist for canonically bridged tokens, making it less risky.
Additionally, to further clarify what @MinistroDolar mentioned above, this proposal aims to disable the legacy bridge and remove it from the gateway controller, which the Arbitrum DAO controls. It does not seek to replace the bridge in the gateway controller with the USDT0 bridge by Tether. Essentially, users will be ‘pushed’ to bridge via the external USDT0 bridge by Layer Zero.
As far as we’re concerned, the outcome of this proposal is largely irrelevant, as its passage would essentially be a rubber stamp of a decision that Tether has already made. Arbitrum and the Arbitrum DAO had no involvement in the decision to move to USDT0 — the DAO's only control is over the gateway controller. In our opinion, it doesn’t make sense to maintain the legacy bridge when 99% of the liquidity is on the Layer Zero bridge.
However, while we’re not opposed to disabling the legacy bridge (as it is sensible from a practical standpoint), we’re also not comfortable endorsing the USDT0 setup and the liveness and safety trust assumptions that come with it.
As a result, we’ve decided that, if and when the proposal goes to a vote, we’ll abstain.
We support this proposal. With Tether’s shift to the USDT0 implementation, there’s little to justify maintaining the legacy bridge.
Support this proposal.
The migration of USDT has moved well and has been a success. This step helps remove confusion and potential pain for individual users through unintended usage of the old bridge.
Blockworks Advisory supports this proposal at the Snapshot level.
As others have mentioned, keeping the remaining legacy USDT bridge up seems to be a liability in the long run with little to nothing to gain for the network nor the DAO. That coupled with its involvement between the Arbitrum canonical bridge make it a problem at Arbitrum's front door from a logistics standpoint. We're in favor of disabling it altogether.
Yes, fully agree deploying this should me accompanied by - at least - an FAQ that can be widely shared ahead of time.
I am all in for completing the transition to the new USDT0 standard as the old bridge's long wait time was a big obstacle for many and the biggest reason why people rely on third-party bridges, and the proposal does fully outline how this will be executed on Arbitrum.
However, would it be possible to add an estimated timelines of events for how this would be handled communications wise? As both @cp0x @cypherbadger mentioned, a lot of stakeholders, liquidity providers, etc. still use it, so while transactions will revert it would be best to give them proper notice.
I am all in for completing the transition to the new USDT0 standard as the old bridge's long wait time was a big obstacle for many and the biggest reason why people rely on third-party bridges, and the proposal does fully outline how this will be executed on Arbitrum.
However, would it be possible to add an estimated timelines of events for how this would be handled communications wise? As both @cp0x @cypherbadger mentioned, a lot of stakeholders, liquidity providers, etc. still use it, so while transactions will revert it would be best to give them proper notice.
I am merely suggesting making a announcement with the exact time and date the legacy bridge will be disabled that can be shared beforehand via Arbitrum's channels, social media, perhaps even reaching out to Tether, and having a few media outlets report on it so users are aware of the change.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support this proposal. Disabling the legacy USDT bridge is a necessary step now that the majority of liquidity has migrated to USDT0. The old gateway no longer serves a meaningful purpose and instead introduces unnecessary risks, such as user confusion, smart contract mishandling, and delayed withdrawals.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support this proposal. Disabling the legacy USDT bridge is a necessary step now that the majority of liquidity has migrated to USDT0. The old gateway no longer serves a meaningful purpose and instead introduces unnecessary risks, such as user confusion, smart contract mishandling, and delayed withdrawals.
We also agree with other delegates that the offboarding process should be handled carefully. Providing a clear public timeline, along with guidance for both users and developers, can help ensure a smooth transition. A final notice shared across relevant channels would go a long way in reducing friction and preventing any last-minute issues.
AranaDigital supports this proposal because the legacy gateway’s seven-day exit delay is no longer acceptable when USDT0 delivers near-instant transfers under the same contract address. Liquidity is already gone: only about $140k remains in the canonical bridge, while roughly a billion dollars now sits in the LayerZero lockbox, so the DAO is bearing risk without utility. Disabling the gateway also removes the auto-withdraw behaviour that can strand funds when smart contracts deposit for users. That said, we echo @cp0x, @cypherbadger, and the L2BEAT team in requesting a clear public timeline, an FAQ, and explicit instructions for converting legacy USDT before execution, plus confirmation that any residual balance will be returned safely. Finally, because USDT0 relies on up-gradable LayerZero verifiers, we ask the proposers to outline the current security stack and the governance process for changing it so delegates can monitor ongoing risk.
I support this proposal - migrating to the new bridge standard is a step in the right direction for ecosystem development.
However, I have a few questions:
I support this proposal - migrating to the new bridge standard is a step in the right direction for ecosystem development.
However, I have a few questions:
If the USDT0 bridge already exists and was implemented without a DAO vote, solely through an agreement between Tether and Offchain Labs, then why is this current proposal being brought to a vote? Literally this raises two questions:
why is this specific action being put to a vote now, and
why wasn’t the earlier migration to USDT0 subject to DAO approval? (For comparison, a similar bridge migration for USDS in the SKY project is also being handled via a DAO vote)
I’d also like to ask: will there be any broad public communication about this change on social media or community channels? Many bots, integrations, or custom frontends may still be relying on the legacy bridge, and awareness is key to avoiding user errors or fund loss
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We reviewed the proposal with the help of L2BEAT’s research team, and we wanted to share our internal discussion to potentially help delegates better assess the proposal. Currently, USDT on Arbitrum has been upgraded to USDT0, so all USDT value on Arbitrum, as far as L2BEAT is concerned, is considered externally bridged, as USDT0 is a LayerZero OFT token (see risks associated with OFT tokens here).
If the proposed upgrade passes, it will prevent further bridging of Ethereum USDT to Arbitrum through the canonical custom gateway. Currently, most deposits flow through the LayerZero external bridge anyway, although there are indeed some sporadic deposits through the canonical bridge even after the migration (e.g., L1 deposit and L2 mint).
There are currently about $140,000 USDT in the gateway, while there’s more than $1,000,000,000 in the LayerZero lockbox. As you can see from the L2 mint transaction, canonically deposited USDT tokens are already minted as USDT0, so the Arbitrum holder trust assumption remains unchanged.
Disabling the legacy bridge will prevent users from using it, avoid the seven-day delay, and prevent any funds from being lost if the bridge is used by a smart contract on behalf of a user. These changes result in a better user experience with minimal effort.
Pushing users to an external bridge, however, is not entirely harmless, and it’s essential to unpack the nuance so delegates can make an informed decision. For example, if all USDT is in the L1 LayerZero lockbox, then withdrawing USDT depends on the DVN and the liveness of the lockbox owner. That trust assumption does not exist for canonically bridged tokens, making it less risky.
Additionally, to further clarify what @MinistroDolar mentioned above, this proposal aims to disable the legacy bridge and remove it from the gateway controller, which the Arbitrum DAO controls. It does not seek to replace the bridge in the gateway controller with the USDT0 bridge by Tether. Essentially, users will be ‘pushed’ to bridge via the external USDT0 bridge by Layer Zero.
As far as we’re concerned, the outcome of this proposal is largely irrelevant, as its passage would essentially be a rubber stamp of a decision that Tether has already made. Arbitrum and the Arbitrum DAO had no involvement in the decision to move to USDT0 — the DAO's only control is over the gateway controller. In our opinion, it doesn’t make sense to maintain the legacy bridge when 99% of the liquidity is on the Layer Zero bridge.
However, while we’re not opposed to disabling the legacy bridge (as it is sensible from a practical standpoint), we’re also not comfortable endorsing the USDT0 setup and the liveness and safety trust assumptions that come with it.
As a result, we’ve decided that, if and when the proposal goes to a vote, we’ll abstain.
We support this proposal. With Tether’s shift to the USDT0 implementation, there’s little to justify maintaining the legacy bridge.
Support this proposal.
The migration of USDT has moved well and has been a success. This step helps remove confusion and potential pain for individual users through unintended usage of the old bridge.
Blockworks Advisory supports this proposal at the Snapshot level.
As others have mentioned, keeping the remaining legacy USDT bridge up seems to be a liability in the long run with little to nothing to gain for the network nor the DAO. That coupled with its involvement between the Arbitrum canonical bridge make it a problem at Arbitrum's front door from a logistics standpoint. We're in favor of disabling it altogether.
Yes, fully agree deploying this should me accompanied by - at least - an FAQ that can be widely shared ahead of time.
I am all in for completing the transition to the new USDT0 standard as the old bridge's long wait time was a big obstacle for many and the biggest reason why people rely on third-party bridges, and the proposal does fully outline how this will be executed on Arbitrum.
However, would it be possible to add an estimated timelines of events for how this would be handled communications wise? As both @cp0x @cypherbadger mentioned, a lot of stakeholders, liquidity providers, etc. still use it, so while transactions will revert it would be best to give them proper notice.
I am all in for completing the transition to the new USDT0 standard as the old bridge's long wait time was a big obstacle for many and the biggest reason why people rely on third-party bridges, and the proposal does fully outline how this will be executed on Arbitrum.
However, would it be possible to add an estimated timelines of events for how this would be handled communications wise? As both @cp0x @cypherbadger mentioned, a lot of stakeholders, liquidity providers, etc. still use it, so while transactions will revert it would be best to give them proper notice.
I am merely suggesting making a announcement with the exact time and date the legacy bridge will be disabled that can be shared beforehand via Arbitrum's channels, social media, perhaps even reaching out to Tether, and having a few media outlets report on it so users are aware of the change.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support this proposal. Disabling the legacy USDT bridge is a necessary step now that the majority of liquidity has migrated to USDT0. The old gateway no longer serves a meaningful purpose and instead introduces unnecessary risks, such as user confusion, smart contract mishandling, and delayed withdrawals.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support this proposal. Disabling the legacy USDT bridge is a necessary step now that the majority of liquidity has migrated to USDT0. The old gateway no longer serves a meaningful purpose and instead introduces unnecessary risks, such as user confusion, smart contract mishandling, and delayed withdrawals.
We also agree with other delegates that the offboarding process should be handled carefully. Providing a clear public timeline, along with guidance for both users and developers, can help ensure a smooth transition. A final notice shared across relevant channels would go a long way in reducing friction and preventing any last-minute issues.
AranaDigital supports this proposal because the legacy gateway’s seven-day exit delay is no longer acceptable when USDT0 delivers near-instant transfers under the same contract address. Liquidity is already gone: only about $140k remains in the canonical bridge, while roughly a billion dollars now sits in the LayerZero lockbox, so the DAO is bearing risk without utility. Disabling the gateway also removes the auto-withdraw behaviour that can strand funds when smart contracts deposit for users. That said, we echo @cp0x, @cypherbadger, and the L2BEAT team in requesting a clear public timeline, an FAQ, and explicit instructions for converting legacy USDT before execution, plus confirmation that any residual balance will be returned safely. Finally, because USDT0 relies on up-gradable LayerZero verifiers, we ask the proposers to outline the current security stack and the governance process for changing it so delegates can monitor ongoing risk.
I support this proposal - migrating to the new bridge standard is a step in the right direction for ecosystem development.
However, I have a few questions:
I support this proposal - migrating to the new bridge standard is a step in the right direction for ecosystem development.
However, I have a few questions:
If the USDT0 bridge already exists and was implemented without a DAO vote, solely through an agreement between Tether and Offchain Labs, then why is this current proposal being brought to a vote? Literally this raises two questions:
why is this specific action being put to a vote now, and
why wasn’t the earlier migration to USDT0 subject to DAO approval? (For comparison, a similar bridge migration for USDS in the SKY project is also being handled via a DAO vote)
I’d also like to ask: will there be any broad public communication about this change on social media or community channels? Many bots, integrations, or custom frontends may still be relying on the legacy bridge, and awareness is key to avoiding user errors or fund loss