Following the AGV council reconfirmation votes for Tim Chang (Venture Capital and Investments) and John Kennedy (Game Development / Go-To-Market Leader), both of which were approved for the 2026 AGV Council, the Election for the three remaining members of the 2026 AGV Council will run from Thursday, November 27th, until Thursday, December 4th.
Snapshot voting will be under a shielded weighted voting system, according to the DAO’s procedures, allowing delegates to allocate their voting power among candidates as they see fit.
The AGV Council serves as a strategic oversight body that ensures AGV’s investments, grants, and partnerships align with the DAO’s mission to establish Arbitrum as the leading ecosystem for gaming and consumer applications. Council Members should represent diverse expertise across gaming, venture capital, operations, and governance, ensuring a balanced, transparent, and accountable process for capital deployment.
In order to maintain a well-rounded Council and avoid role overlap, no more than two individuals with the same Core Competency will be accepted onto the AGV Council:
If three (3) members of the same Core Competency receive the highest votes (including the two reconfirmed seats), the candidate with the lowest votes would not be elected, and the seat would pass to the candidate with the next-highest votes from a different Core Competency.
More information on the council, its purpose, primary responsibilities, and expected core competencies and qualifications can be found in the Elections Timeline and Process Overview.
Calls were held earlier on Monday, 24th, and Tuesday, 25th of November for applicants to introduce themselves and advocate for their selection. Both recordings can be found below.
Please also review the “Candidates Eligible for the Snapshot Voting Stage” section at the end of this post for a list of candidates included in the Snapshot vote, as well as the 2026 AGV Council Elections: Application thread for more information on the candidates, and the complete Timeline and Process Overview for elections.
We also remind delegates of the policy regarding purchasing votes on vote-buying platforms. If purchased votes are the reason a candidate qualifies for a Council seat, the DAO will need to affirm or reject that outcome through a reconfirmation vote.
All elected council members must be able to pass a KYC and conflicts of interest screening in order to be eligible as a member of the 2026 AGV Council. Additionally, OpCo will conduct a reference check for all electees to verify the expertise and experience stated in their CVs before making the final decision on electee qualification. If a candidate fails to pass this qualification stage, their seat would pass to the candidate with the next-highest votes, as long as that would not introduce a member with a third matching Core Competency; otherwise, it would pass down to the next-highest votes until a fully eligible council is formed.
Contributors who disclose a conflict of interest are not expected to alter their voting in any way. Self-voting is not currently banned outright for the reasons stated in previous DAO-wide discussions and based on sentiment gathered from a subsequent temperature check.
For more information, refer to the DAO’s procedures.
The following applicants will be included in the Snapshot vote for AGV 2026 Council elections:
Core Competency: Strategy / Operations Leader
Additional Information
GM and Creator, Xbox Live Arcade at Microsoft (2000-07): created the first console-based digital games ecosystem in history and delivered a $100M+ business for Microsoft. Wrote business plan, secured funding, staffed team, led product definition, shipped 75+ titles and worked with 90+ developers and publishers. Published 20+ titles under Microsoft Game Studios and developed numerous franchises, including Minecraft.
Vice President, Mobile, Activision Blizzard (2011-14): built and ran the mobile division at the world’s #1 video game publisher as GM and head of studios. Shipped award-winning games based on the top-selling Call of Duty and Skylanders franchises, Pitfall!, Wipeout, and more for iOS and Android platforms. Managed three studios, demand generation, user acquisition and partnership marketing, platform partnerships, publishing (in partnership with Flurry) and team of 100+ with P&L responsibility.
Project Director, Battle.net at Blizzard (2009-11): GM and head of product management and development for the next generation of Battle.net, Blizzard’s core AAA game service and social network serving 35M+ users worldwide. Successfully integrated new service into the StarCraft, World of Warcraft, and Diablo franchises. Drove social and community efforts, web presence and branding amongst other efforts.
Vice President, Video Game Platforms, PopCap Games (2007-09): GM and commercial leader of PopCap’s non-PC games efforts. Brought PopCap’s top-selling franchises (Plants vs. Zombies, Peggle, Bejeweled, Zuma) to consoles and other platforms. Led product management, brand marketing and partnerships, and drove multiple studio M&A deals at the Series A/B stage. Now a division of Electronic Arts.
SVP Studios & GM, GSN Games (division of Sony) (2014-17): GSN is a leading developer and publisher of social/casual games for various platforms with two top-20 grossing franchises on iOS and Google Play. Greg served as GM and studio head, managing and growing the company’s skill business and evolution, enabling competitive play of the world’s biggest and most popular mobile games for free or real money via a new casual eSports platform. Also managed internal and external development of other free-to-play mobile/social titles. Drove brand/product marketing, demand gen, UA, social/community, PR/comms, BD/partnerships and multiple M&A deals. Managed multiple development studios at various points and staff of 250+ with direct P&L responsibility.
Global Director, Strategy & Business Operations, Games, Google (2017-23): Led key strategic, operational, marketing and studio functions for Google’s AAA cloud gaming businesses (consumer and SaaS), working closely with internal and external development partners. Managed product planning & strategy, go-to-market, analytics & insights, promotions, monetization, pricing and more with a global and diverse team. Also drove key initiatives for Identity/Account and Mobile within Google Core at the leadership level.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
No
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
Yes, Sequence Platforms Inc., a web3 infrastructure platform built for gaming and other blockchain dapps. No intention to apply for AGV programs during council tenure.
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Greg is an accomplished and passionate executive leader with 30+ years experience in the gaming industry at Xbox/Microsoft, Battle.net/Blizzard, Activision, GSN/Sony, PopCap Games (acquired by EA), Google, and Apple. Today, he serves as President & COO at Sequence, the award-winning development platform for integrating web3 into games.
Greg has spent his career focused on game platforms, publishing and ecosystem creation, and played a key role in the advent and proliferation of gaming innovations including multiplayer gaming, digital distribution, social gaming, matchmaking, cloud gaming, and free-to-play. He views web3 and blockchain as critical technologies that will transform the gaming industry. Some of his accomplishments include:
Creator & GM of Xbox Live Arcade: pioneered the first console-based digital games ecosystem in history, shipped 75+ titles, worked with 90+ developers and publishers, published and developed numerous franchises, including UNO, Bejeweled and Minecraft. Also served in strategy and product development roles on Xbox and Xbox 360.
Project Director of Battle.net: defined and led Blizzard’s core AAA game service and social network serving 35M+ users worldwide, successfully integrating Battle.net into the World of Warcraft, StarCraft, and Diablo franchises.
Vice President, Mobile at Activision Blizzard: built and ran the mobile division at the world’s #1 game publisher as GM and head of studios, shipped award-winning games and franchises such as Call of Duty, Skylanders, Pitfall!, and Wipeout; managed three studios, user acquisition, platform partnerships, and publishing.
Deep experience shipping and developing core AAA brands Call of Duty, StarCraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, Sonic, etc., and indie/casual brands Tetris, Pac-man, Peggle, UNO, etc., with 35+ game credits.
Global Director, Strategy & Operations, Games at Google: led key strategic, operational, marketing and studio functions for Google’s AAA cloud gaming business, and drove key initiatives for Identity/Account and Mobile within Google Core at leadership level.
As a hardcore gamer who’s inspired by new technologies, innovations, and platforms that lower access barriers, drive new and awesome experiences for gamers, and create new business opportunities for developers, Greg believes web3 is the next disruptive technology to revolutionize gaming.
In his current role as COO & President of Sequence, Greg manages a wide range of operational functions for the company, including finance, accounting, data analytics, operations, strategy, BD, GTM, M&A and marketing. He drives numerous initiatives necessitating cross-functional alignment, goal setting, and decision making in the highly dynamic web3 space. Sequence plays an instrumental role in delivering value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, helping to power key web3 games and support various Arbitrum Orbit chains with the Sequence infrastructure stack.
Greg is also a founding member of the AGV council, where he has been instrumental in helping to set up and support the AGV operating team in a number of different capacities. He has been involved in most operational aspects of the program, providing guidance, expertise and networking contacts to support the partners and GM. Amongst his accomplishments, Greg drove the recruiting process for the AGV GM and founders, helped bootstrap PR/comms and other critical functions, and has brought a games industry operational perspective to both internal AGV operations as well as evaluation of prospective investments and portcos.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Rick Johanson - Partner at AGV
Michael Chang - GM at AGV
Additional references available upon request
Disclosures
Other than Greg’s current role as a Founding AGV Council member, he holds no other roles with the Arbitrum DAO.
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
Additional Information
Provide specific examples from their experience to support your selection.
I have been involved in the Arbitrum DAO since 2023, moved by the interest of understanding governance and meet stakeholders of the ecosystem while working for several Arbitrum native projects. Since that time, I have been involved in several initiatives:
While it is not required by the application, I would like to briefly explain the reasoning behind my candidacy.
I have supported AGV since its inception, initially as part of the interim council, and later as a delegate joining regular calls with Dan and Rick. Over the last year, this has meant participating in monthly calls with other stakeholders, as well as individual calls, to better understand the fund’s activities and contribute input on DAO-related matters. To be clear, I do not have access to any privileged information. My involvement has been solely in my capacity as a delegate who has followed AGV since its creation and has broader experience navigating governance. My intention has simply been to help where I can.
My intention in seeking this position is to have both the bandwidth and the formal role to step up further.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
None right now.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
No
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Sinkas (current program manager of OpCo)
Gianluca, Ministro (Arbitrum representatives of SeedGov)
Disclosures
I am employeed by Blockworks, which is a delegate in Arbitrum DAO as well as other DAOs; I am an advisor for Camelot; I am also the Program Manager of the D.A.O. Grant Program. I am receiving compensation for the latter role from the DAO as per the D.A.O. Grant Program Tally vote, and I have received so far compensation as a contributor enrolled in the DIP Program.
Core Competency: Business Development / Growth Leader
Additional Information
I am the head of gaming and consumer partnerships at Offchain Labs, having worked with the organisation for 3.5 years. In this time I have represented Offchain Labs in conversations with over 500 gaming & consumer companies. I prospect and help onboard and manage relationships for a significant part of the Arbitrum gaming and consumer ecosystem, which currently consists of over 80 projects and companies.
As a founding member of the AGV Council, I have a strong, daily working relationship with both the AGV team and the council. A core focus of my tenure has been ensuring a smooth experience for builders engaging with the various entities within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Specifically, I have served as a liaison, facilitating cross-AAE collaboration by connecting the Offchain Labs partnerships team (who field many opportunities) with the AGV investment and grants teams (which handle the investment or grants diligence and contracting). My role on the AGV council has been instrumental in bridging these teams.
Prior to my role at Offchain Labs, I was a principal engineer & business development lead at a computer science firm for 7 years.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
No.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
I lead gaming partnerships for Offchain Labs, working directly with gaming companies on a daily basis.
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Steven Goldfeder (Co-founder and CEO at Offchain Labs)
A.J. Warner (Chief Strategy Officer at Offchain Labs)
Disclosures
I am employed by Offchain Labs and have spent the past 3.5 years dedicated to growing the Arbitrum ecosystem in a sustainable manner. I hold no other roles in the Arbitrum DAO other than as a retail $ARB token holder.
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
Additional Information
GFX Labs has served in a variety of DAOs and DAO structures as a delegate over the years: Uniswap, MakerDAO/Sky, Compound, Arbitrum, Optimism, Hop, 0x.
GFX Labs has also served as a service provider to many DAOs and projects, including the Long Term Incentive Pilot Program and the Stable Treasury Endowment Program within Arbitrum.
We have reviewed hundreds of grants, overseen the allocation and granting of at nine figures of funds, and are retained for due diligence research regularly.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
From time to time, GFX Labs will serve as a service provider to networks. I represent GFX Labs on the Optimism Grants Council for Season 8 (July 31 – December 24, 2025). We have done previous work for zkEVM, Berachain, and (of course) Arbitrum.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
GFX Labs previously developed Etherlands (sunset in 2022).
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
GFX’s relevant work covers many areas, as outlined above, and is largely public facing. As a sample only, please refer to our work on Arbitrum in LTIPP, STEP I, and STEP II.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Of course.
References:
Disclosures
I have no direct or indirect exposure (as defined as 1% or more of my net worth) to any game creator, publisher, or gaming-sector financial company. I have no family members working for any game creator, publisher, or gaming-sector financial company.
I have no material holdings (as defined as $1000 or more) of any crypto asset other than various stablecoins and network gas tokens.
GFX Labs has, to the best of my knowledge, no exposure or existing relationships with any game creator, publisher, or gaming-sector financial company. Tokens held by GFX Labs are the product of in-kind payment (e.g. ARB) or for work-related purposes (e.g. gas tokens and stablecoins).
GFX Labs, like many delegates, provides services to a variety of DAOs, including grants review, financial diligence and risk assessment, procurement RFP evaluation, smart contract development, and user interface support. We will maintain an updated disclosure list on this forum (either on our delegate communications thread or some other permanent location for all AGV councilors) for 2026 once the term begins.
GFX Labs is a delegate eligible under the current and all proposed Arbitrum delegate incentive plans.
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
Additional Information
I’ve been an active delegate in the Arbitrum DAO since 2023 and was recognized as one of the top delegates in the past DIP program. I’ve represented the DAO at various events and conferences, where I also gave talks about Arbitrum.
I also helped kick off and co-run a mini-apps program on Farcaster with people from the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs, which sparked more experimentation and interest in consumer and gaming apps.
Overall, I’m a well-informed and well-connected delegate with a strong understanding of the DAO’s structure, dynamics, and AAEs.
Over the last six months, I’ve been one of the most active delegates working on AGV-related efforts and the broader gaming sector. I’ve kept the DAO updated on gaming trends, Arbitrum-native games, and all AGV activities.
I introduced the idea of hosting playtests with AGV portfolio projects and took the lead on organizing and coordinating those sessions. I’ve also shared regular gaming-sector updates across the forum and Telegram while staying active in AGV project communities through their Telegram groups, Discord servers, and other channels.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
No.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
No.
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Actively participated in all gaming-related topics on the Arbitrum DAO forum: Profile - Tekr0x.eth - Arbitrum
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Krzysztof Urbański, L2BEAT
Dan Peng, partner at AGV
Disclosures
I have no actual or potential conflicts of interest. I have participated as an active delegate in a delegate incentive program (DIP).
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
I have the skills and background to also apply under Strategy / Operations Leader or Business Development / Growth Leader, but applying under Governance & Policy Leader reflects the role I’ve contributed most actively to on the current council, and reflects the unique area of insight I bring to the program.
Having worked through AGV’s establishment phase, I bring not just governance expertise but the specific context of how this program’s governance structures were designed, why certain decisions were made, and where refinement (rather than restructuring) is needed.
Additional Information
A long history with this program which provides me unique institutional knowledge and context, including working to ensure that it functions in a manner that is strongly aligned with Arbitrum.
My involvement spans:
My effectiveness stems from my ability to focus singularly on Arbitrum DAO’s interests rather than applying general DAO governance frameworks, most of which haven’t been applied to venture. I understand what Arbitrum specifically needs from AGV and how it fits into our broader ecosystem strategy. This provides essential balance to a council otherwise composed primarily of gaming and venture industry professionals who bring critical domain expertise. We need both: strong gaming/venture voices AND strong Arbitrum-aligned voices. My involvement ensures AGV remains focused on its clear role: serving Arbitrum’s ecosystem growth.
I’m running to ensure we don’t lose momentum on the work started. AGV remains hopefully the first of many investment/treasury related initiatives (and entities) that we pursue as we take a more economically driven approach to growing the DAO. We shouldn’t keep reinventing the wheel, making the same mistakes and suffering needless delays. As an active delegate, including as we move into a more AAE-driven direction, I have a unique grasp on the DAO’s goals, programs and stakeholders, letting us cut through the noise, help others get things done and unlock the potential of these DAO-controlled businesses to serve the greater vision of Arbitrum.
Simply having done the job before doesn’t guarantee I can do it best going forward. I think people can realistically say they felt frustrated that AGV wasn’t as responsive on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis to the DAO during the first term. That frustration is understandable.
I chose to prioritize my efforts on advocating for building durable governance systems over quick fixes, advocating for foundations rather than expedient solutions that weren’t long-term sustainable or would cause future disputes, even when that meant slower visible public progress. I worked to ensure the DAO would have strong influence on the program without needing to go to extremes, which meant choosing to work quietly on structure rather than publicly.
The operating team should be able to execute swiftly on their mandate, but oversight rights can’t be traded away for operational convenience. Effective oversight doesn’t mean micromanagement, it means the team can operate with confidence knowing the guardrails are clear and consistently applied. That’s what enables speed sustainably, but building those systems doesn’t happen overnight and work still remains.
The fact that AGV has clearly turned the corner in recent months reflects both the strong team assembled and the governance foundation that now enables them to operate effectively. That work positions us to move forward with both clarity and speed.
Next Term Priorities
To be clear, what I’m reflecting below is what I hope to encourage fellow council members to also believe in and give clear guidance to the team for improving the program and its impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem. It is not the job of oversight to do all such things, but to ensure we can convey to the team what we want and be effective in having that happen.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
I am not involved in any competitive DAOs from a governance perspective but am a Core contributor to the GMX DAO, a leading DeFi protocol on Arbitrum and other blockchains.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
No
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes. For reference, KYC and NDAs have already been executed with the GCP Foundation (AGV) as part of my role on the GCP Council, and I’ve respected and honoured such agreements.
References
References include individuals who have previously directly worked with me on AGV/GCP matters and can speak to the nature of effective oversight of AAEs
Andreea - Arbitrum Foundation
Patrick McCorry - Arbitrum Foundation
AJ Warner - Offchain Labs
Disclosures
As a core contributor to GMX, I actively advocate on behalf of the GMX DAO. The nature of such activity includes involvement in Arbitrum Governance (although that is led by the GMX DAO’s governance committee, which I’m not a member of).
I actively invest within the Crypto space, but with most investments being in DeFi and Infrastructure, there has been no known conflicts to date and I would recuse if one were to arise.
Additionally, please disclose all active contributor roles and payment streams related to the Arbitrum DAO that the applicant and entities with which they have a professional or financial relationship have and are receiving.
I’m a member of the AGV oversight council, and currently draw compensation from there. I have previously served on various councils, committees and multisigs on behalf of the Arbitrum DAO but draw no current compensation from any such roles.
I’m not currently a participant in the DAO’s Delegate Incentive Program but may or may not participate in the future depending on the nature and obligations of the program.
GMX activities are supported by the Arbitrum DAO through programs including DRIP (user liquidity incentives distributed by the Arbitrum DAO directly to users), and the Audit Support Program and will likely be supported in the future as GMX remains an active participant in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Following the AGV council reconfirmation votes for Tim Chang (Venture Capital and Investments) and John Kennedy (Game Development / Go-To-Market Leader), both of which were approved for the 2026 AGV Council, the Election for the three remaining members of the 2026 AGV Council will run from Thursday, November 27th, until Thursday, December 4th.
Snapshot voting will be under a shielded weighted voting system, according to the DAO’s procedures, allowing delegates to allocate their voting power among candidates as they see fit.
The AGV Council serves as a strategic oversight body that ensures AGV’s investments, grants, and partnerships align with the DAO’s mission to establish Arbitrum as the leading ecosystem for gaming and consumer applications. Council Members should represent diverse expertise across gaming, venture capital, operations, and governance, ensuring a balanced, transparent, and accountable process for capital deployment.
In order to maintain a well-rounded Council and avoid role overlap, no more than two individuals with the same Core Competency will be accepted onto the AGV Council:
If three (3) members of the same Core Competency receive the highest votes (including the two reconfirmed seats), the candidate with the lowest votes would not be elected, and the seat would pass to the candidate with the next-highest votes from a different Core Competency.
More information on the council, its purpose, primary responsibilities, and expected core competencies and qualifications can be found in the Elections Timeline and Process Overview.
Calls were held earlier on Monday, 24th, and Tuesday, 25th of November for applicants to introduce themselves and advocate for their selection. Both recordings can be found below.
Please also review the “Candidates Eligible for the Snapshot Voting Stage” section at the end of this post for a list of candidates included in the Snapshot vote, as well as the 2026 AGV Council Elections: Application thread for more information on the candidates, and the complete Timeline and Process Overview for elections.
We also remind delegates of the policy regarding purchasing votes on vote-buying platforms. If purchased votes are the reason a candidate qualifies for a Council seat, the DAO will need to affirm or reject that outcome through a reconfirmation vote.
All elected council members must be able to pass a KYC and conflicts of interest screening in order to be eligible as a member of the 2026 AGV Council. Additionally, OpCo will conduct a reference check for all electees to verify the expertise and experience stated in their CVs before making the final decision on electee qualification. If a candidate fails to pass this qualification stage, their seat would pass to the candidate with the next-highest votes, as long as that would not introduce a member with a third matching Core Competency; otherwise, it would pass down to the next-highest votes until a fully eligible council is formed.
Contributors who disclose a conflict of interest are not expected to alter their voting in any way. Self-voting is not currently banned outright for the reasons stated in previous DAO-wide discussions and based on sentiment gathered from a subsequent temperature check.
For more information, refer to the DAO’s procedures.
The following applicants will be included in the Snapshot vote for AGV 2026 Council elections:
Core Competency: Strategy / Operations Leader
Additional Information
GM and Creator, Xbox Live Arcade at Microsoft (2000-07): created the first console-based digital games ecosystem in history and delivered a $100M+ business for Microsoft. Wrote business plan, secured funding, staffed team, led product definition, shipped 75+ titles and worked with 90+ developers and publishers. Published 20+ titles under Microsoft Game Studios and developed numerous franchises, including Minecraft.
Vice President, Mobile, Activision Blizzard (2011-14): built and ran the mobile division at the world’s #1 video game publisher as GM and head of studios. Shipped award-winning games based on the top-selling Call of Duty and Skylanders franchises, Pitfall!, Wipeout, and more for iOS and Android platforms. Managed three studios, demand generation, user acquisition and partnership marketing, platform partnerships, publishing (in partnership with Flurry) and team of 100+ with P&L responsibility.
Project Director, Battle.net at Blizzard (2009-11): GM and head of product management and development for the next generation of Battle.net, Blizzard’s core AAA game service and social network serving 35M+ users worldwide. Successfully integrated new service into the StarCraft, World of Warcraft, and Diablo franchises. Drove social and community efforts, web presence and branding amongst other efforts.
Vice President, Video Game Platforms, PopCap Games (2007-09): GM and commercial leader of PopCap’s non-PC games efforts. Brought PopCap’s top-selling franchises (Plants vs. Zombies, Peggle, Bejeweled, Zuma) to consoles and other platforms. Led product management, brand marketing and partnerships, and drove multiple studio M&A deals at the Series A/B stage. Now a division of Electronic Arts.
SVP Studios & GM, GSN Games (division of Sony) (2014-17): GSN is a leading developer and publisher of social/casual games for various platforms with two top-20 grossing franchises on iOS and Google Play. Greg served as GM and studio head, managing and growing the company’s skill business and evolution, enabling competitive play of the world’s biggest and most popular mobile games for free or real money via a new casual eSports platform. Also managed internal and external development of other free-to-play mobile/social titles. Drove brand/product marketing, demand gen, UA, social/community, PR/comms, BD/partnerships and multiple M&A deals. Managed multiple development studios at various points and staff of 250+ with direct P&L responsibility.
Global Director, Strategy & Business Operations, Games, Google (2017-23): Led key strategic, operational, marketing and studio functions for Google’s AAA cloud gaming businesses (consumer and SaaS), working closely with internal and external development partners. Managed product planning & strategy, go-to-market, analytics & insights, promotions, monetization, pricing and more with a global and diverse team. Also drove key initiatives for Identity/Account and Mobile within Google Core at the leadership level.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
No
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
Yes, Sequence Platforms Inc., a web3 infrastructure platform built for gaming and other blockchain dapps. No intention to apply for AGV programs during council tenure.
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Greg is an accomplished and passionate executive leader with 30+ years experience in the gaming industry at Xbox/Microsoft, Battle.net/Blizzard, Activision, GSN/Sony, PopCap Games (acquired by EA), Google, and Apple. Today, he serves as President & COO at Sequence, the award-winning development platform for integrating web3 into games.
Greg has spent his career focused on game platforms, publishing and ecosystem creation, and played a key role in the advent and proliferation of gaming innovations including multiplayer gaming, digital distribution, social gaming, matchmaking, cloud gaming, and free-to-play. He views web3 and blockchain as critical technologies that will transform the gaming industry. Some of his accomplishments include:
Creator & GM of Xbox Live Arcade: pioneered the first console-based digital games ecosystem in history, shipped 75+ titles, worked with 90+ developers and publishers, published and developed numerous franchises, including UNO, Bejeweled and Minecraft. Also served in strategy and product development roles on Xbox and Xbox 360.
Project Director of Battle.net: defined and led Blizzard’s core AAA game service and social network serving 35M+ users worldwide, successfully integrating Battle.net into the World of Warcraft, StarCraft, and Diablo franchises.
Vice President, Mobile at Activision Blizzard: built and ran the mobile division at the world’s #1 game publisher as GM and head of studios, shipped award-winning games and franchises such as Call of Duty, Skylanders, Pitfall!, and Wipeout; managed three studios, user acquisition, platform partnerships, and publishing.
Deep experience shipping and developing core AAA brands Call of Duty, StarCraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, Sonic, etc., and indie/casual brands Tetris, Pac-man, Peggle, UNO, etc., with 35+ game credits.
Global Director, Strategy & Operations, Games at Google: led key strategic, operational, marketing and studio functions for Google’s AAA cloud gaming business, and drove key initiatives for Identity/Account and Mobile within Google Core at leadership level.
As a hardcore gamer who’s inspired by new technologies, innovations, and platforms that lower access barriers, drive new and awesome experiences for gamers, and create new business opportunities for developers, Greg believes web3 is the next disruptive technology to revolutionize gaming.
In his current role as COO & President of Sequence, Greg manages a wide range of operational functions for the company, including finance, accounting, data analytics, operations, strategy, BD, GTM, M&A and marketing. He drives numerous initiatives necessitating cross-functional alignment, goal setting, and decision making in the highly dynamic web3 space. Sequence plays an instrumental role in delivering value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, helping to power key web3 games and support various Arbitrum Orbit chains with the Sequence infrastructure stack.
Greg is also a founding member of the AGV council, where he has been instrumental in helping to set up and support the AGV operating team in a number of different capacities. He has been involved in most operational aspects of the program, providing guidance, expertise and networking contacts to support the partners and GM. Amongst his accomplishments, Greg drove the recruiting process for the AGV GM and founders, helped bootstrap PR/comms and other critical functions, and has brought a games industry operational perspective to both internal AGV operations as well as evaluation of prospective investments and portcos.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Rick Johanson - Partner at AGV
Michael Chang - GM at AGV
Additional references available upon request
Disclosures
Other than Greg’s current role as a Founding AGV Council member, he holds no other roles with the Arbitrum DAO.
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
Additional Information
Provide specific examples from their experience to support your selection.
I have been involved in the Arbitrum DAO since 2023, moved by the interest of understanding governance and meet stakeholders of the ecosystem while working for several Arbitrum native projects. Since that time, I have been involved in several initiatives:
While it is not required by the application, I would like to briefly explain the reasoning behind my candidacy.
I have supported AGV since its inception, initially as part of the interim council, and later as a delegate joining regular calls with Dan and Rick. Over the last year, this has meant participating in monthly calls with other stakeholders, as well as individual calls, to better understand the fund’s activities and contribute input on DAO-related matters. To be clear, I do not have access to any privileged information. My involvement has been solely in my capacity as a delegate who has followed AGV since its creation and has broader experience navigating governance. My intention has simply been to help where I can.
My intention in seeking this position is to have both the bandwidth and the formal role to step up further.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
None right now.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
No
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Sinkas (current program manager of OpCo)
Gianluca, Ministro (Arbitrum representatives of SeedGov)
Disclosures
I am employeed by Blockworks, which is a delegate in Arbitrum DAO as well as other DAOs; I am an advisor for Camelot; I am also the Program Manager of the D.A.O. Grant Program. I am receiving compensation for the latter role from the DAO as per the D.A.O. Grant Program Tally vote, and I have received so far compensation as a contributor enrolled in the DIP Program.
Core Competency: Business Development / Growth Leader
Additional Information
I am the head of gaming and consumer partnerships at Offchain Labs, having worked with the organisation for 3.5 years. In this time I have represented Offchain Labs in conversations with over 500 gaming & consumer companies. I prospect and help onboard and manage relationships for a significant part of the Arbitrum gaming and consumer ecosystem, which currently consists of over 80 projects and companies.
As a founding member of the AGV Council, I have a strong, daily working relationship with both the AGV team and the council. A core focus of my tenure has been ensuring a smooth experience for builders engaging with the various entities within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Specifically, I have served as a liaison, facilitating cross-AAE collaboration by connecting the Offchain Labs partnerships team (who field many opportunities) with the AGV investment and grants teams (which handle the investment or grants diligence and contracting). My role on the AGV council has been instrumental in bridging these teams.
Prior to my role at Offchain Labs, I was a principal engineer & business development lead at a computer science firm for 7 years.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
No.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
I lead gaming partnerships for Offchain Labs, working directly with gaming companies on a daily basis.
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Steven Goldfeder (Co-founder and CEO at Offchain Labs)
A.J. Warner (Chief Strategy Officer at Offchain Labs)
Disclosures
I am employed by Offchain Labs and have spent the past 3.5 years dedicated to growing the Arbitrum ecosystem in a sustainable manner. I hold no other roles in the Arbitrum DAO other than as a retail $ARB token holder.
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
Additional Information
GFX Labs has served in a variety of DAOs and DAO structures as a delegate over the years: Uniswap, MakerDAO/Sky, Compound, Arbitrum, Optimism, Hop, 0x.
GFX Labs has also served as a service provider to many DAOs and projects, including the Long Term Incentive Pilot Program and the Stable Treasury Endowment Program within Arbitrum.
We have reviewed hundreds of grants, overseen the allocation and granting of at nine figures of funds, and are retained for due diligence research regularly.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
From time to time, GFX Labs will serve as a service provider to networks. I represent GFX Labs on the Optimism Grants Council for Season 8 (July 31 – December 24, 2025). We have done previous work for zkEVM, Berachain, and (of course) Arbitrum.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
GFX Labs previously developed Etherlands (sunset in 2022).
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
GFX’s relevant work covers many areas, as outlined above, and is largely public facing. As a sample only, please refer to our work on Arbitrum in LTIPP, STEP I, and STEP II.
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Of course.
References:
Disclosures
I have no direct or indirect exposure (as defined as 1% or more of my net worth) to any game creator, publisher, or gaming-sector financial company. I have no family members working for any game creator, publisher, or gaming-sector financial company.
I have no material holdings (as defined as $1000 or more) of any crypto asset other than various stablecoins and network gas tokens.
GFX Labs has, to the best of my knowledge, no exposure or existing relationships with any game creator, publisher, or gaming-sector financial company. Tokens held by GFX Labs are the product of in-kind payment (e.g. ARB) or for work-related purposes (e.g. gas tokens and stablecoins).
GFX Labs, like many delegates, provides services to a variety of DAOs, including grants review, financial diligence and risk assessment, procurement RFP evaluation, smart contract development, and user interface support. We will maintain an updated disclosure list on this forum (either on our delegate communications thread or some other permanent location for all AGV councilors) for 2026 once the term begins.
GFX Labs is a delegate eligible under the current and all proposed Arbitrum delegate incentive plans.
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
Additional Information
I’ve been an active delegate in the Arbitrum DAO since 2023 and was recognized as one of the top delegates in the past DIP program. I’ve represented the DAO at various events and conferences, where I also gave talks about Arbitrum.
I also helped kick off and co-run a mini-apps program on Farcaster with people from the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs, which sparked more experimentation and interest in consumer and gaming apps.
Overall, I’m a well-informed and well-connected delegate with a strong understanding of the DAO’s structure, dynamics, and AAEs.
Over the last six months, I’ve been one of the most active delegates working on AGV-related efforts and the broader gaming sector. I’ve kept the DAO updated on gaming trends, Arbitrum-native games, and all AGV activities.
I introduced the idea of hosting playtests with AGV portfolio projects and took the lead on organizing and coordinating those sessions. I’ve also shared regular gaming-sector updates across the forum and Telegram while staying active in AGV project communities through their Telegram groups, Discord servers, and other channels.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
No.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
No.
Please share any relevant links, bios, or publications showcasing your work.
Actively participated in all gaming-related topics on the Arbitrum DAO forum: Profile - Tekr0x.eth - Arbitrum
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes
References:
Krzysztof Urbański, L2BEAT
Dan Peng, partner at AGV
Disclosures
I have no actual or potential conflicts of interest. I have participated as an active delegate in a delegate incentive program (DIP).
Core Competency: Governance & Policy Leader
I have the skills and background to also apply under Strategy / Operations Leader or Business Development / Growth Leader, but applying under Governance & Policy Leader reflects the role I’ve contributed most actively to on the current council, and reflects the unique area of insight I bring to the program.
Having worked through AGV’s establishment phase, I bring not just governance expertise but the specific context of how this program’s governance structures were designed, why certain decisions were made, and where refinement (rather than restructuring) is needed.
Additional Information
A long history with this program which provides me unique institutional knowledge and context, including working to ensure that it functions in a manner that is strongly aligned with Arbitrum.
My involvement spans:
My effectiveness stems from my ability to focus singularly on Arbitrum DAO’s interests rather than applying general DAO governance frameworks, most of which haven’t been applied to venture. I understand what Arbitrum specifically needs from AGV and how it fits into our broader ecosystem strategy. This provides essential balance to a council otherwise composed primarily of gaming and venture industry professionals who bring critical domain expertise. We need both: strong gaming/venture voices AND strong Arbitrum-aligned voices. My involvement ensures AGV remains focused on its clear role: serving Arbitrum’s ecosystem growth.
I’m running to ensure we don’t lose momentum on the work started. AGV remains hopefully the first of many investment/treasury related initiatives (and entities) that we pursue as we take a more economically driven approach to growing the DAO. We shouldn’t keep reinventing the wheel, making the same mistakes and suffering needless delays. As an active delegate, including as we move into a more AAE-driven direction, I have a unique grasp on the DAO’s goals, programs and stakeholders, letting us cut through the noise, help others get things done and unlock the potential of these DAO-controlled businesses to serve the greater vision of Arbitrum.
Simply having done the job before doesn’t guarantee I can do it best going forward. I think people can realistically say they felt frustrated that AGV wasn’t as responsive on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis to the DAO during the first term. That frustration is understandable.
I chose to prioritize my efforts on advocating for building durable governance systems over quick fixes, advocating for foundations rather than expedient solutions that weren’t long-term sustainable or would cause future disputes, even when that meant slower visible public progress. I worked to ensure the DAO would have strong influence on the program without needing to go to extremes, which meant choosing to work quietly on structure rather than publicly.
The operating team should be able to execute swiftly on their mandate, but oversight rights can’t be traded away for operational convenience. Effective oversight doesn’t mean micromanagement, it means the team can operate with confidence knowing the guardrails are clear and consistently applied. That’s what enables speed sustainably, but building those systems doesn’t happen overnight and work still remains.
The fact that AGV has clearly turned the corner in recent months reflects both the strong team assembled and the governance foundation that now enables them to operate effectively. That work positions us to move forward with both clarity and speed.
Next Term Priorities
To be clear, what I’m reflecting below is what I hope to encourage fellow council members to also believe in and give clear guidance to the team for improving the program and its impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem. It is not the job of oversight to do all such things, but to ensure we can convey to the team what we want and be effective in having that happen.
Are you involved with any other networks from a governance perspective? If so, please list the DAOs and networks.
I am not involved in any competitive DAOs from a governance perspective but am a Core contributor to the GMX DAO, a leading DeFi protocol on Arbitrum and other blockchains.
Do you work for a gaming related company? If yes, please list the company or companies you are employed by and confirm if this company intends on applying for any AGV programs?
No
Are you willing to complete appropriate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), KYC requirements, and other necessary documents?
Yes. For reference, KYC and NDAs have already been executed with the GCP Foundation (AGV) as part of my role on the GCP Council, and I’ve respected and honoured such agreements.
References
References include individuals who have previously directly worked with me on AGV/GCP matters and can speak to the nature of effective oversight of AAEs
Andreea - Arbitrum Foundation
Patrick McCorry - Arbitrum Foundation
AJ Warner - Offchain Labs
Disclosures
As a core contributor to GMX, I actively advocate on behalf of the GMX DAO. The nature of such activity includes involvement in Arbitrum Governance (although that is led by the GMX DAO’s governance committee, which I’m not a member of).
I actively invest within the Crypto space, but with most investments being in DeFi and Infrastructure, there has been no known conflicts to date and I would recuse if one were to arise.
Additionally, please disclose all active contributor roles and payment streams related to the Arbitrum DAO that the applicant and entities with which they have a professional or financial relationship have and are receiving.
I’m a member of the AGV oversight council, and currently draw compensation from there. I have previously served on various councils, committees and multisigs on behalf of the Arbitrum DAO but draw no current compensation from any such roles.
I’m not currently a participant in the DAO’s Delegate Incentive Program but may or may not participate in the future depending on the nature and obligations of the program.
GMX activities are supported by the Arbitrum DAO through programs including DRIP (user liquidity incentives distributed by the Arbitrum DAO directly to users), and the Audit Support Program and will likely be supported in the future as GMX remains an active participant in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gi0rgos-delegate-communication-thread/29451/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gi0rgos-delegate-communication-thread/29451/34
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-140): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-140
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-140): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-140
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642/53?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642/53?u=euphoria
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-141): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-141
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-141): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-141
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/24?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/24?u=tekr0x.eth
this council is in dire need of properly legitimate elections, not reconfirmation votes.
this council is in dire need of properly legitimate elections, not reconfirmation votes.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/60?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/30?u=hawheik
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-116): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-116
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/29
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/28?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/27?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/26?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/25?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/24?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/22
Today I’m voting yes because I support the movement. But in the future, I’d love to see Arbitrum—by its very nature—only invest in immortal games, fully onchain games, or at least more Autonomous Worlds. I get that the current game scene on Arbitrum is cool, but we need games! That’s where the real innovation is happening.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
Extension seems reasonable for continuity. See our full reasoning here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/21?u=pennblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gi0rgos-delegate-communication-thread/29451/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gi0rgos-delegate-communication-thread/29451/34
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-140): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-140
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-140): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-140
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642/53?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/lampros-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26642/53?u=euphoria
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-141): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-141
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-141): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-141
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/24?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/24?u=tekr0x.eth
this council is in dire need of properly legitimate elections, not reconfirmation votes.
this council is in dire need of properly legitimate elections, not reconfirmation votes.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/60?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/30?u=hawheik
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-116): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-116
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/29
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/28?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/27?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/26?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/25?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/24?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/22
Today I’m voting yes because I support the movement. But in the future, I’d love to see Arbitrum—by its very nature—only invest in immortal games, fully onchain games, or at least more Autonomous Worlds. I get that the current game scene on Arbitrum is cool, but we need games! That’s where the real innovation is happening.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
Extension seems reasonable for continuity. See our full reasoning here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-extend-agv-council-term-and-align-future-elections-with-operational-cadence/29425/21?u=pennblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gcp-eoy-update-and-transparency-report/28024
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gcp-eoy-update-and-transparency-report/28024
Hi @cp0x, yes, all current Council members have been receiving full compensation from the time of their appointment.
AGV, like many DAO initiatives, is an early-stage experiment. As with any startup, we've had to move decisively and adapt based on what we’ve learned in practice. One of the early realizations was that in order to provide effective oversight and ensure operational traction, the Council needed to play a far more hands-on role than traditional DAO councils.
Hi @cp0x, yes, all current Council members have been receiving full compensation from the time of their appointment.
AGV, like many DAO initiatives, is an early-stage experiment. As with any startup, we've had to move decisively and adapt based on what we’ve learned in practice. One of the early realizations was that in order to provide effective oversight and ensure operational traction, the Council needed to play a far more hands-on role than traditional DAO councils.
From day one, Council members have been embedded in AGV’s core operations, not just reviewing and approving proposals, but helping to shape the legal structure, define team composition, participate in hiring, and leverage their networks to build AGV’s presence and pipeline. Their involvement has enabled the team to streamline hiring and operate leanly, while still maintaining high-quality deal flow and execution.
This is not a static structure. We’ll continue evaluating what works and evolve AGV’s model accordingly; always with the goal of building a sustainable, high-impact investment engine for the DAO.
That's a good suggestion. Thanks @Saurabh!
Thanks to everyone who shared feedback on the proposal. We’ve reviewed all comments and would like to address the key points raised:
We agree with the concerns raised by @Tane, @cp0x, @Michigan_Blockchain and @Ignas about the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss if the full Council transitions at once.
Thanks to everyone who shared feedback on the proposal. We’ve reviewed all comments and would like to address the key points raised:
We agree with the concerns raised by @Tane, @cp0x, @Michigan_Blockchain and @Ignas about the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss if the full Council transitions at once.
Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss...
It might be worth considering a staggered term model... to preserve continuity and allow for a gradual transition between cohorts.
Our initial proposal focused on reducing the operational burden that staggered elections and multiple onboarding cycles would create for a small team like AGV. That said, we fully recognize the need for a smooth transition process.
To address this, we’re proposing 13-month terms for Council members. This structure includes a one-month overlap period during December, where outgoing and incoming members will work in parallel. The month will be used for onboarding, task handovers, and transferring institutional knowledge — helping ensure continuity without introducing unnecessary complexity. Incoming members will not hold voting rights during this transition period and will formally begin their roles, with full responsibilities and decision-making authority, at the start of January.
Incoming Council members will receive a half-month stipend for December, before assuming full responsibilities in January.
Last time, it was a 3-member election with 2 additional members appointed and confirmed by the DAO. Will the mechanics still be the same?
Yes, the mechanics will remain unchanged. As before, the DAO will elect 3 Council members through a public vote, and those elected will nominate 2 additional members, subject to DAO confirmation. No changes are proposed to this process.
I’m concerned that this initiative doesn’t clearly present the current term durations...
We acknowledge this and agree it should have been made clearer. The omission was not intentional, and we’ll be updating the proposal to explicitly state the original term durations for all current Council members.
My suggestion would be one re-election possible and then a compulsory one-year break from the council...
Thanks @jameskbh for raising this. AGV Council elections will not follow the same re-election limits typically applied to DAO oversight councils. The AGV Council serves a different and more operational role — participating in due diligence, approving every investment and grant, and guiding the strategy of AGV.
Given the specialized context and the need for continuity, it is often more beneficial for AGV to have Council members with institutional memory and domain expertise continue their service, if they choose to run and are re-elected by the DAO. The re-election process remains subject to community approval through a public vote.
We appreciate the thoughtful feedback from everyone. These insights have helped us refine the proposal and ensure it better reflects both AGV’s structure and the DAO’s expectations. Let us know if there are further suggestions you'd like us to consider.
Motivation AGV is entering its first full year of execution. This period is resource-intensive and strategically sensitive, involving active capital deployment, milestone tracking, ecosystem coordination, and team expansion. The Council has played a critical role in shaping AGV’s foundation across investment review, grant oversight, and organizational design, and remains central to its success.
Hi @cp0x, yes, all current Council members have been receiving full compensation from the time of their appointment.
AGV, like many DAO initiatives, is an early-stage experiment. As with any startup, we've had to move decisively and adapt based on what we’ve learned in practice. One of the early realizations was that in order to provide effective oversight and ensure operational traction, the Council needed to play a far more hands-on role than traditional DAO councils.
Hi @cp0x, yes, all current Council members have been receiving full compensation from the time of their appointment.
AGV, like many DAO initiatives, is an early-stage experiment. As with any startup, we've had to move decisively and adapt based on what we’ve learned in practice. One of the early realizations was that in order to provide effective oversight and ensure operational traction, the Council needed to play a far more hands-on role than traditional DAO councils.
From day one, Council members have been embedded in AGV’s core operations, not just reviewing and approving proposals, but helping to shape the legal structure, define team composition, participate in hiring, and leverage their networks to build AGV’s presence and pipeline. Their involvement has enabled the team to streamline hiring and operate leanly, while still maintaining high-quality deal flow and execution.
This is not a static structure. We’ll continue evaluating what works and evolve AGV’s model accordingly; always with the goal of building a sustainable, high-impact investment engine for the DAO.
That's a good suggestion. Thanks @Saurabh!
Thanks to everyone who shared feedback on the proposal. We’ve reviewed all comments and would like to address the key points raised:
We agree with the concerns raised by @Tane, @cp0x, @Michigan_Blockchain and @Ignas about the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss if the full Council transitions at once.
Thanks to everyone who shared feedback on the proposal. We’ve reviewed all comments and would like to address the key points raised:
We agree with the concerns raised by @Tane, @cp0x, @Michigan_Blockchain and @Ignas about the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss if the full Council transitions at once.
Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss...
It might be worth considering a staggered term model... to preserve continuity and allow for a gradual transition between cohorts.
Our initial proposal focused on reducing the operational burden that staggered elections and multiple onboarding cycles would create for a small team like AGV. That said, we fully recognize the need for a smooth transition process.
To address this, we’re proposing 13-month terms for Council members. This structure includes a one-month overlap period during December, where outgoing and incoming members will work in parallel. The month will be used for onboarding, task handovers, and transferring institutional knowledge — helping ensure continuity without introducing unnecessary complexity. Incoming members will not hold voting rights during this transition period and will formally begin their roles, with full responsibilities and decision-making authority, at the start of January.
Incoming Council members will receive a half-month stipend for December, before assuming full responsibilities in January.
Last time, it was a 3-member election with 2 additional members appointed and confirmed by the DAO. Will the mechanics still be the same?
Yes, the mechanics will remain unchanged. As before, the DAO will elect 3 Council members through a public vote, and those elected will nominate 2 additional members, subject to DAO confirmation. No changes are proposed to this process.
I’m concerned that this initiative doesn’t clearly present the current term durations...
We acknowledge this and agree it should have been made clearer. The omission was not intentional, and we’ll be updating the proposal to explicitly state the original term durations for all current Council members.
My suggestion would be one re-election possible and then a compulsory one-year break from the council...
Thanks @jameskbh for raising this. AGV Council elections will not follow the same re-election limits typically applied to DAO oversight councils. The AGV Council serves a different and more operational role — participating in due diligence, approving every investment and grant, and guiding the strategy of AGV.
Given the specialized context and the need for continuity, it is often more beneficial for AGV to have Council members with institutional memory and domain expertise continue their service, if they choose to run and are re-elected by the DAO. The re-election process remains subject to community approval through a public vote.
We appreciate the thoughtful feedback from everyone. These insights have helped us refine the proposal and ensure it better reflects both AGV’s structure and the DAO’s expectations. Let us know if there are further suggestions you'd like us to consider.
Motivation AGV is entering its first full year of execution. This period is resource-intensive and strategically sensitive, involving active capital deployment, milestone tracking, ecosystem coordination, and team expansion. The Council has played a critical role in shaping AGV’s foundation across investment review, grant oversight, and organizational design, and remains central to its success.
Motivation AGV is entering its first full year of execution. This period is resource-intensive and strategically sensitive, involving active capital deployment, milestone tracking, ecosystem coordination, and team expansion. The Council has played a critical role in shaping AGV’s foundation across investment review, grant oversight, and organizational design, and remains central to its success.
To maintain momentum and avoid mid-cycle transitions, we propose extending the current Council term up to the end of 2025. Additionally, we aim to align all future Council appointments with a single election and onboarding window, providing AGV with the stability and foresight needed to plan around its core business cycle.
Rationale When the AGV Council was first elected in late 2024, the goal was to rapidly establish a strong governance structure to oversee the launch of AGV’s investment and grant programs. However, due to departures of previously elected members, our current Council members have varied tenures with AGV due to the staggered nature of our previous round of elections.
Now that AGV is in full execution mode with multiple investments approved, milestone tracking underway, and new deals under review, it is crucial that our core operations remain stable. A staggered or mid-year transition could interrupt that continuity at a time when our Council’s experienced oversight is most needed.
Aligning all Council seats into a single, calendar-based term (January through December) simplifies the process for both the AGV operations team and the DAO, while also aligning governance processes with the natural rhythm of AGV’s operations.
Under this proposal, nominations for the next Council election will open in October, with voting held in November and a structured transition taking place in December, when AGV activity is expected to slow. This avoids governance turnover during peak quarters and provides incoming Council members with the time and context needed to onboard effectively.
Specifications
Steps to Implement
Timeline
Overall Cost There is no additional cost associated with this proposal. Governance coordination will be handled within AGV’s existing operational framework.
From a legal standpoint, this proposal demonstrates sound reasoning and aligns with principles of operational continuity and fiduciary oversight.
Recommendation: This proposal strengthens procedural transparency, continuity, and community accountability. I support it and suggest future updates include a periodic Council review mechanism (e.g., biannual performance audits) to further enhance DAO governance health.
Motivation AGV is entering its first full year of execution. This period is resource-intensive and strategically sensitive, involving active capital deployment, milestone tracking, ecosystem coordination, and team expansion. The Council has played a critical role in shaping AGV’s foundation across investment review, grant oversight, and organizational design, and remains central to its success.
To maintain momentum and avoid mid-cycle transitions, we propose extending the current Council term up to the end of 2025. Additionally, we aim to align all future Council appointments with a single election and onboarding window, providing AGV with the stability and foresight needed to plan around its core business cycle.
Rationale When the AGV Council was first elected in late 2024, the goal was to rapidly establish a strong governance structure to oversee the launch of AGV’s investment and grant programs. However, due to departures of previously elected members, our current Council members have varied tenures with AGV due to the staggered nature of our previous round of elections.
Now that AGV is in full execution mode with multiple investments approved, milestone tracking underway, and new deals under review, it is crucial that our core operations remain stable. A staggered or mid-year transition could interrupt that continuity at a time when our Council’s experienced oversight is most needed.
Aligning all Council seats into a single, calendar-based term (January through December) simplifies the process for both the AGV operations team and the DAO, while also aligning governance processes with the natural rhythm of AGV’s operations.
Under this proposal, nominations for the next Council election will open in October, with voting held in November and a structured transition taking place in December, when AGV activity is expected to slow. This avoids governance turnover during peak quarters and provides incoming Council members with the time and context needed to onboard effectively.
Specifications
Steps to Implement
Timeline
Overall Cost There is no additional cost associated with this proposal. Governance coordination will be handled within AGV’s existing operational framework.
From a legal standpoint, this proposal demonstrates sound reasoning and aligns with principles of operational continuity and fiduciary oversight.
Recommendation: This proposal strengthens procedural transparency, continuity, and community accountability. I support it and suggest future updates include a periodic Council review mechanism (e.g., biannual performance audits) to further enhance DAO governance health.
GM, I have voted in favour. It makes sense from an operational standpoint to run calendar years for simplicity, but this proposal was misleading and poorly worded. Nowhere was it clear that council will be extended +6 months. “Extend the existing Council’s term through the end of 2025.” is not nearly enough transparent as it should have been. The primary goal of this proposal was to extend mandate, the secondary goal to align calendar year. It was presented the other way around.
Voted FOR to keep this moving, hope we can see AGV results soon
GM, I have voted in favour. It makes sense from an operational standpoint to run calendar years for simplicity, but this proposal was misleading and poorly worded. Nowhere was it clear that council will be extended +6 months. “Extend the existing Council’s term through the end of 2025.” is not nearly enough transparent as it should have been. The primary goal of this proposal was to extend mandate, the secondary goal to align calendar year. It was presented the other way around.
Voted FOR to keep this moving, hope we can see AGV results soon
PS it would have also been great to attach all names of current council members, although ofc that’s public knowledge and there are calls everywhere, proposals, snapshots online, elections, etc - it helps to reiterate for non terminally online people who casually read forums
Vote: FOR
It make sense to keep the AGV going til the end of the year to sync with everything.
With that said, term extensions without public evaluation sets a weak precedent, there is a lot of comms going on behind the scenes but before the next cycle we need clear and regular reporting on what the council is delivering and where it can improve
Vote: FOR
It make sense to keep the AGV going til the end of the year to sync with everything.
With that said, term extensions without public evaluation sets a weak precedent, there is a lot of comms going on behind the scenes but before the next cycle we need clear and regular reporting on what the council is delivering and where it can improve
Supporting this now for operational clarity but expect stronger public accountability mechanisms moving forward.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for. Below the rationale:
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal aligns well with our stance on maintaining operational efficiency at this critical stage. We previously expressed concerns about operational disruptions and knowledge loss, and we appreciate that the revised proposal effectively incorporates those considerations. The proposed approach of overlapping council terms ensures smoother transitions and continuity without increasing unnecessary operational burdens.
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal aligns well with our stance on maintaining operational efficiency at this critical stage. We previously expressed concerns about operational disruptions and knowledge loss, and we appreciate that the revised proposal effectively incorporates those considerations. The proposed approach of overlapping council terms ensures smoother transitions and continuity without increasing unnecessary operational burdens.
Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss…
It might be worth considering a staggered term model… to preserve continuity and allow for a gradual transition between cohorts.
Our initial proposal focused on reducing the operational burden that staggered elections and multiple onboarding cycles would create for a small team like AGV. That said, we fully recognize the need for a smooth transition process.
Voting "For" so as to give the AGV a better opportunity to achieve their goals.
Seconding the idea of a phased election to stagger any potential replacements as has been mentioned throughout the thread, that would have been a nice thing to see, to capture and pass along knowledge and other mind-state efficiently.
Voting "For" so as to give the AGV a better opportunity to achieve their goals.
Seconding the idea of a phased election to stagger any potential replacements as has been mentioned throughout the thread, that would have been a nice thing to see, to capture and pass along knowledge and other mind-state efficiently.
i.e. the election should leave room for a handover period if needed. This proposal feels like the easy occasion to implement that improved timing/handover setup.
GM, I have voted in favour. It makes sense from an operational standpoint to run calendar years for simplicity, but this proposal was misleading and poorly worded. Nowhere was it clear that council will be extended +6 months. “Extend the existing Council’s term through the end of 2025.” is not nearly enough transparent as it should have been. The primary goal of this proposal was to extend mandate, the secondary goal to align calendar year. It was presented the other way around.
Voted FOR to keep this moving, hope we can see AGV results soon
GM, I have voted in favour. It makes sense from an operational standpoint to run calendar years for simplicity, but this proposal was misleading and poorly worded. Nowhere was it clear that council will be extended +6 months. “Extend the existing Council’s term through the end of 2025.” is not nearly enough transparent as it should have been. The primary goal of this proposal was to extend mandate, the secondary goal to align calendar year. It was presented the other way around.
Voted FOR to keep this moving, hope we can see AGV results soon
PS it would have also been great to attach all names of current council members, although ofc that’s public knowledge and there are calls everywhere, proposals, snapshots online, elections, etc - it helps to reiterate for non terminally online people who casually read forums
Vote: FOR
It make sense to keep the AGV going til the end of the year to sync with everything.
With that said, term extensions without public evaluation sets a weak precedent, there is a lot of comms going on behind the scenes but before the next cycle we need clear and regular reporting on what the council is delivering and where it can improve
Vote: FOR
It make sense to keep the AGV going til the end of the year to sync with everything.
With that said, term extensions without public evaluation sets a weak precedent, there is a lot of comms going on behind the scenes but before the next cycle we need clear and regular reporting on what the council is delivering and where it can improve
Supporting this now for operational clarity but expect stronger public accountability mechanisms moving forward.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for. Below the rationale:
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal aligns well with our stance on maintaining operational efficiency at this critical stage. We previously expressed concerns about operational disruptions and knowledge loss, and we appreciate that the revised proposal effectively incorporates those considerations. The proposed approach of overlapping council terms ensures smoother transitions and continuity without increasing unnecessary operational burdens.
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal aligns well with our stance on maintaining operational efficiency at this critical stage. We previously expressed concerns about operational disruptions and knowledge loss, and we appreciate that the revised proposal effectively incorporates those considerations. The proposed approach of overlapping council terms ensures smoother transitions and continuity without increasing unnecessary operational burdens.
Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss…
It might be worth considering a staggered term model… to preserve continuity and allow for a gradual transition between cohorts.
Our initial proposal focused on reducing the operational burden that staggered elections and multiple onboarding cycles would create for a small team like AGV. That said, we fully recognize the need for a smooth transition process.
Voting "For" so as to give the AGV a better opportunity to achieve their goals.
Seconding the idea of a phased election to stagger any potential replacements as has been mentioned throughout the thread, that would have been a nice thing to see, to capture and pass along knowledge and other mind-state efficiently.
Voting "For" so as to give the AGV a better opportunity to achieve their goals.
Seconding the idea of a phased election to stagger any potential replacements as has been mentioned throughout the thread, that would have been a nice thing to see, to capture and pass along knowledge and other mind-state efficiently.
i.e. the election should leave room for a handover period if needed. This proposal feels like the easy occasion to implement that improved timing/handover setup.
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.
Extending the AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025 makes sense, given this is the initiative’s first full year of execution. Aligning Council terms with the calendar year brings clarity, reduces mid-cycle disruption, and creates a predictable governance rhythm for the DAO to work with.
We also align with community suggestions shared by @Curia, @tamara, and others on improving the transition process and Council visibility. A December overlap period is a good start, and over time, lightweight midterm updates or reflections from the Council can help the DAO stay aligned and informed.
Voting for. I believe it's important to ensure continuity and allow the process to run smoothly, without unnecessary slowdowns caused by the current calendar structure. Like other delegates, I initially had concerns regarding the transition between mandates and the handover of tasks. However, the alternative solution proposed by @ArbitrumGaming seems to address this effectively
Voting "For" to extend.
I'm not sure I'm fully for this in general, but I think there is a few operational realities here. 1) Startup was delayed, so there is a fair point to be made that the subsequent back-end of that is to be extended. 2) Elections at the beginning of the year feels like a cleaner approach all around. 3) This extension vote essentially acts as a reapproval vote for the current council anyway, and I'd imagine if there were delegates who had issues with current members it would not pass.
DAOplomats is voting FOR on Snapshot.
This proposal is quite straightforward as it ensures continuity for the AGV Council while aligning future elections with the DAO’s broader operational timeline.
This avoids unnecessary disruption, gives current members time to complete ongoing initiatives, and creates a more stable governance flow.
I voteed FOR on Snapshot because this make things more easy for AGV Council to keep working without change people in busy time. The new election time is better and more clear. I think it's good for everyone and help the work not stop
I voted FOR on this proposal. The editions made it more clear and I'm overall supportive of the direction AGV is taking.
We support this proposal, as aligning the AGV Council term with the calendar year brings much-needed stability during its first full year of execution. We also align with community suggestions around improving the transition process, such as considering staggered terms in future cycles to retain institutional knowledge, and ensuring there’s a clear handover period before new members take over. At the same time, we believe this is a good moment to reflect on what’s been accomplished so far. Evaluating the Council’s progress can help shape a clearer long-term vision, allowing us to anticipate future needs and continue improving both governance and delivery. This proposal is a strong step forward, and these additions could make it even more effective.
Extending the term seems reasonable. FranklinDAO would like to echo feedback from @cp0x on including the election calendar in the proposal and clarifying compensation for council members.
With regards to compensation transparency, it would be helpful to clarify whether "cost neutral" means that members would receive the same monthly comp for the extended term, which is cost-neutral in the sense that it's equivalent to electing a potentially new set of council members; it does not mean that the annualized compensation would be spread out over the longer term to account for operating delays.
Extending the term seems reasonable. FranklinDAO would like to echo feedback from @cp0x on including the election calendar in the proposal and clarifying compensation for council members.
With regards to compensation transparency, it would be helpful to clarify whether "cost neutral" means that members would receive the same monthly comp for the extended term, which is cost-neutral in the sense that it's equivalent to electing a potentially new set of council members; it does not mean that the annualized compensation would be spread out over the longer term to account for operating delays.
It would also be helpful to outline who are the sitting members of the council in the proposal to make it clear who's getting their terms extended.
AranaDigital supports this proposal to extend the AGV Council’s term through 2025, as it ensures necessary continuity during AGV’s first full execution year and aligns governance with AGV’s operational cadence. The change is cost-neutral and adds no new burden to the treasury. The current Council has proved effective in daily operations and managed early challenges well, so replacing it mid-stream could set the initiative back. Shifting all Council terms to a January–December cycle with elections in a quieter fourth quarter adds predictability and simplifies the process. Delegates such as @Tane, @cp0x, @Michigan_Blockchain, and @Ignas have flagged that rotating the entire Council at once may risk lost expertise and slow onboarding, and we share that concern. The proposers’ plan for 13-month terms with a one-month overlap in December should address this by allowing handover and knowledge transfer. We recommend clarifying edge cases: for instance, if a member resigns only weeks before year-end, will a replacement be appointed or will the remaining members cover the gap? As @tamara suggested, defining a cutoff of about two months before the term’s end could work.
It makes sense to align the term to a Jan - December schedule
One comment on replacement:
It makes sense to align the term to a Jan - December schedule
One comment on replacement:
Separately (not sure if the AF or Entropy have this at hand) it would be nice to have an election calendar, to have a better overview of what elections happen when (with a separate discussion being whether most elections should fall in the same timeframe to have start and end dates that align with the calendar year.)
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 are supportive of this proposal.
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 are supportive of this proposal.
As we’ve seen in the past with many initiatives, starting and ending dates often get mixed up because there’s usually a discrepancy between when the proposal passes voting and when the related workstream begins.
This adjustment is straightforward and would enable the Council to operate in 1-year cycles, from January 1st to December 31st, making it easier to track and remember.
Incoming Council members will receive a half-month stipend for December, before assuming full responsibilities in January
We love the idea of 13 month terms (with the 1 month overlap). As far as we can tell, this should allow for robust transfer of institutional knowledge, while allowing for new ideas/people to play an active role.
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 extending the current council's term. Despite facing significant concerns and backlash, the council has navigated these challenges admirably. We do request that a council member provide an update on their ongoing work to keep the community informed of their progress.
Thanks for your proposal
I want to echo other comments by saying that the optimal path to prevent any disruption would be a phased election. That will ensure that knowledge remains within the council.
I wanted to get more clarity on a few other topics:
Thanks for your proposal
I want to echo other comments by saying that the optimal path to prevent any disruption would be a phased election. That will ensure that knowledge remains within the council.
I wanted to get more clarity on a few other topics:
Replacing the Council in the middle of active investing, milestone tracking, and ecosystem work would slow things down, create unnecessary disruption, and set the initiative back. So I will support extending the current AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025.
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
Generally fine by me. What I'm missing here is a schedule for elections that are not last minute i.e. the election should leave room for a handover period if needed. This proposal feels like the easy occasion to implement that improved timing/handover setup.
Hi @ArbitrumGaming, could you please share the EOY Transparency Report you’re referencing here?
EOY Transparency Report, January 1, 2025 was the official start date of the AGV program
I’ve looked around but haven’t been able to find it — would appreciate the link. Thank you.
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.
Extending the AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025 makes sense, given this is the initiative’s first full year of execution. Aligning Council terms with the calendar year brings clarity, reduces mid-cycle disruption, and creates a predictable governance rhythm for the DAO to work with.
We also align with community suggestions shared by @Curia, @tamara, and others on improving the transition process and Council visibility. A December overlap period is a good start, and over time, lightweight midterm updates or reflections from the Council can help the DAO stay aligned and informed.
Voting for. I believe it's important to ensure continuity and allow the process to run smoothly, without unnecessary slowdowns caused by the current calendar structure. Like other delegates, I initially had concerns regarding the transition between mandates and the handover of tasks. However, the alternative solution proposed by @ArbitrumGaming seems to address this effectively
Voting "For" to extend.
I'm not sure I'm fully for this in general, but I think there is a few operational realities here. 1) Startup was delayed, so there is a fair point to be made that the subsequent back-end of that is to be extended. 2) Elections at the beginning of the year feels like a cleaner approach all around. 3) This extension vote essentially acts as a reapproval vote for the current council anyway, and I'd imagine if there were delegates who had issues with current members it would not pass.
DAOplomats is voting FOR on Snapshot.
This proposal is quite straightforward as it ensures continuity for the AGV Council while aligning future elections with the DAO’s broader operational timeline.
This avoids unnecessary disruption, gives current members time to complete ongoing initiatives, and creates a more stable governance flow.
I voteed FOR on Snapshot because this make things more easy for AGV Council to keep working without change people in busy time. The new election time is better and more clear. I think it's good for everyone and help the work not stop
I voted FOR on this proposal. The editions made it more clear and I'm overall supportive of the direction AGV is taking.
We support this proposal, as aligning the AGV Council term with the calendar year brings much-needed stability during its first full year of execution. We also align with community suggestions around improving the transition process, such as considering staggered terms in future cycles to retain institutional knowledge, and ensuring there’s a clear handover period before new members take over. At the same time, we believe this is a good moment to reflect on what’s been accomplished so far. Evaluating the Council’s progress can help shape a clearer long-term vision, allowing us to anticipate future needs and continue improving both governance and delivery. This proposal is a strong step forward, and these additions could make it even more effective.
Extending the term seems reasonable. FranklinDAO would like to echo feedback from @cp0x on including the election calendar in the proposal and clarifying compensation for council members.
With regards to compensation transparency, it would be helpful to clarify whether "cost neutral" means that members would receive the same monthly comp for the extended term, which is cost-neutral in the sense that it's equivalent to electing a potentially new set of council members; it does not mean that the annualized compensation would be spread out over the longer term to account for operating delays.
Extending the term seems reasonable. FranklinDAO would like to echo feedback from @cp0x on including the election calendar in the proposal and clarifying compensation for council members.
With regards to compensation transparency, it would be helpful to clarify whether "cost neutral" means that members would receive the same monthly comp for the extended term, which is cost-neutral in the sense that it's equivalent to electing a potentially new set of council members; it does not mean that the annualized compensation would be spread out over the longer term to account for operating delays.
It would also be helpful to outline who are the sitting members of the council in the proposal to make it clear who's getting their terms extended.
AranaDigital supports this proposal to extend the AGV Council’s term through 2025, as it ensures necessary continuity during AGV’s first full execution year and aligns governance with AGV’s operational cadence. The change is cost-neutral and adds no new burden to the treasury. The current Council has proved effective in daily operations and managed early challenges well, so replacing it mid-stream could set the initiative back. Shifting all Council terms to a January–December cycle with elections in a quieter fourth quarter adds predictability and simplifies the process. Delegates such as @Tane, @cp0x, @Michigan_Blockchain, and @Ignas have flagged that rotating the entire Council at once may risk lost expertise and slow onboarding, and we share that concern. The proposers’ plan for 13-month terms with a one-month overlap in December should address this by allowing handover and knowledge transfer. We recommend clarifying edge cases: for instance, if a member resigns only weeks before year-end, will a replacement be appointed or will the remaining members cover the gap? As @tamara suggested, defining a cutoff of about two months before the term’s end could work.
It makes sense to align the term to a Jan - December schedule
One comment on replacement:
It makes sense to align the term to a Jan - December schedule
One comment on replacement:
Separately (not sure if the AF or Entropy have this at hand) it would be nice to have an election calendar, to have a better overview of what elections happen when (with a separate discussion being whether most elections should fall in the same timeframe to have start and end dates that align with the calendar year.)
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 are supportive of this proposal.
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 are supportive of this proposal.
As we’ve seen in the past with many initiatives, starting and ending dates often get mixed up because there’s usually a discrepancy between when the proposal passes voting and when the related workstream begins.
This adjustment is straightforward and would enable the Council to operate in 1-year cycles, from January 1st to December 31st, making it easier to track and remember.
Incoming Council members will receive a half-month stipend for December, before assuming full responsibilities in January
We love the idea of 13 month terms (with the 1 month overlap). As far as we can tell, this should allow for robust transfer of institutional knowledge, while allowing for new ideas/people to play an active role.
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 extending the current council's term. Despite facing significant concerns and backlash, the council has navigated these challenges admirably. We do request that a council member provide an update on their ongoing work to keep the community informed of their progress.
Thanks for your proposal
I want to echo other comments by saying that the optimal path to prevent any disruption would be a phased election. That will ensure that knowledge remains within the council.
I wanted to get more clarity on a few other topics:
Thanks for your proposal
I want to echo other comments by saying that the optimal path to prevent any disruption would be a phased election. That will ensure that knowledge remains within the council.
I wanted to get more clarity on a few other topics:
Replacing the Council in the middle of active investing, milestone tracking, and ecosystem work would slow things down, create unnecessary disruption, and set the initiative back. So I will support extending the current AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025.
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
Generally fine by me. What I'm missing here is a schedule for elections that are not last minute i.e. the election should leave room for a handover period if needed. This proposal feels like the easy occasion to implement that improved timing/handover setup.
Hi @ArbitrumGaming, could you please share the EOY Transparency Report you’re referencing here?
EOY Transparency Report, January 1, 2025 was the official start date of the AGV program
I’ve looked around but haven’t been able to find it — would appreciate the link. Thank you.
Incoming Council members will receive a half-month stipend for December, before assuming full responsibilities in January
I'm glad you brought up the topic of compensation. The thing is, this proposal cannot be viewed separately from the other one that deals with increasing the salaries of council members.
I believe you were right to separate them, but it's important to keep in mind not only the timelines outlined in this proposal, but also the fact that these individuals would be receiving increased compensation (just so voters are aware of this when voting).
As for me, I’m not opposed to extending the term in this case, since the actual work didn’t start a full year ago but later. However, I do have a question:
were all members receiving full compensation during the months prior to the actual start of their work?
Replacing the Council in the middle of active investing, milestone tracking, and ecosystem work would slow things down, create unnecessary disruption, and set the initiative back. So I will support extending the current AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025.
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
Agree @Tane on this. If all five Council members rotate out at once, we risk losing valuable context and experience that’s been built up over the past year. Without a strong handover process, we could end up with slower decision making, knowledge gaps, and even missed opportunities.
Maybe keeping a staggered model could help, 3 members on a calendar-year term and 2 on a mid-year offset.
Also, the replacement process for resigning members is clear, But I do wonder how internal selections are made by the Council? what criteria are used? Who gets considered?
I'm concerned that this initiative doesn't clearly present the current term durations. For delegates, all decisions should be fully transparent. I hope this omission isn’t intentional — but it still takes extra time and effort to track down this information manually
Here is a table with the key dates:
I'm concerned that this initiative doesn't clearly present the current term durations. For delegates, all decisions should be fully transparent. I hope this omission isn’t intentional — but it still takes extra time and effort to track down this information manually
Here is a table with the key dates:
| Stage | Description | Date / Period |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Appointment | Council was appointed for a 12-month term | August 2024 |
| Scheduled Term Duration | Initially set to run until June 2025 | August 2025 |
| Proposal to Extend Term | Proposed to extend the current council’s term until the end of the year | Until December 2025 |
This effectively extends the current terms by nearly half a year
Given that the work has only just begun and recent reports show that it's actively progressing, I believe an exception can be made in this case.
However, if the goal is to ensure a smoother transition, it might be worth considering a staggered term model — similar to the Security Council — where different members serve overlapping six-month terms. This would preserve continuity and allow for a gradual transition between cohorts
We completely agree that the terms for the current council should be extended into December ‘25. There is no evidence that the current council is underperforming, and we should emphasize continuity especially at this early stage.
As for holding elections for all council members at the same time, this threatens continuity. @Tane had an interesting idea of varying term length in accordance with vote share, while still holding elections at the same time. This makes sense, and balances concerns between uniform elections and the prevention of knowledge loss.
We completely agree that the terms for the current council should be extended into December ‘25. There is no evidence that the current council is underperforming, and we should emphasize continuity especially at this early stage.
As for holding elections for all council members at the same time, this threatens continuity. @Tane had an interesting idea of varying term length in accordance with vote share, while still holding elections at the same time. This makes sense, and balances concerns between uniform elections and the prevention of knowledge loss.
Alternatively, we could adopt a parliamentary model, where the AGV designates one member to remain on the council regardless of election outcome. This way, even if the rest of the council is replaced, there will be one member left for the sake of continuity.
Michigan Blockchain | Jack Verrill | TG @JackVerrill
Being closer than others to AGV, I have seen first hand how council did work during 2024. But also I do know how effectively the initiative, for several reasons already highlighted in other threads, did start effectively operations only in january.
In my opinion it makes sense to allow them to operate for the whole 2025 as a 1y mandate: the alternative is to replace them very soon (in the next month or two) and this would set back the initiative a lot. Reason is simple: current council is not just a council, it effectively participate to the day to day operations of the fund, in a way that is not apparent to most delegates (more on this on the other proposal).
Being closer than others to AGV, I have seen first hand how council did work during 2024. But also I do know how effectively the initiative, for several reasons already highlighted in other threads, did start effectively operations only in january.
In my opinion it makes sense to allow them to operate for the whole 2025 as a 1y mandate: the alternative is to replace them very soon (in the next month or two) and this would set back the initiative a lot. Reason is simple: current council is not just a council, it effectively participate to the day to day operations of the fund, in a way that is not apparent to most delegates (more on this on the other proposal).
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
While I can't decide for AGV, I honestly expect a good portion of the current council to be again candidates for the initiative, knowing how each one of them has been pouring effort into the job; I also expect the DAO to reelect most if not all of them. One thing that could help is better disclosing their scope of work, and the new proposal is a very good start but we can definitely do more.
One thing is unclear for elections tho: last time, it was a 3 members election, with then appointing further 2 members with a confirmation vote from the DAO. Would the mechanics still be the same here?
Thanks @ArbitrumGaming for the proposal!
We support the pragmatic extension of the current AGV Council term to ensure smooth operational continuity, particularly given the critical early execution stage and current resource constraints. It is indeed essential to avoid unnecessary operational disruptions at this juncture.
Thanks @ArbitrumGaming for the proposal!
We support the pragmatic extension of the current AGV Council term to ensure smooth operational continuity, particularly given the critical early execution stage and current resource constraints. It is indeed essential to avoid unnecessary operational disruptions at this juncture.
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
To address this, we suggest considering an adjusted election structure. For example, holding elections in December but varying term lengths based on voting results. Specifically, the lowest-ranked elected member could serve a shorter, half-year term, triggering a mid-year election, or the top-ranked member could have an extended term of 1.5 years. Such an arrangement would preserve stability while ensuring periodic and manageable leadership transitions.
Incoming Council members will receive a half-month stipend for December, before assuming full responsibilities in January
I'm glad you brought up the topic of compensation. The thing is, this proposal cannot be viewed separately from the other one that deals with increasing the salaries of council members.
I believe you were right to separate them, but it's important to keep in mind not only the timelines outlined in this proposal, but also the fact that these individuals would be receiving increased compensation (just so voters are aware of this when voting).
As for me, I’m not opposed to extending the term in this case, since the actual work didn’t start a full year ago but later. However, I do have a question:
were all members receiving full compensation during the months prior to the actual start of their work?
Replacing the Council in the middle of active investing, milestone tracking, and ecosystem work would slow things down, create unnecessary disruption, and set the initiative back. So I will support extending the current AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025.
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
Agree @Tane on this. If all five Council members rotate out at once, we risk losing valuable context and experience that’s been built up over the past year. Without a strong handover process, we could end up with slower decision making, knowledge gaps, and even missed opportunities.
Maybe keeping a staggered model could help, 3 members on a calendar-year term and 2 on a mid-year offset.
Also, the replacement process for resigning members is clear, But I do wonder how internal selections are made by the Council? what criteria are used? Who gets considered?
I'm concerned that this initiative doesn't clearly present the current term durations. For delegates, all decisions should be fully transparent. I hope this omission isn’t intentional — but it still takes extra time and effort to track down this information manually
Here is a table with the key dates:
I'm concerned that this initiative doesn't clearly present the current term durations. For delegates, all decisions should be fully transparent. I hope this omission isn’t intentional — but it still takes extra time and effort to track down this information manually
Here is a table with the key dates:
| Stage | Description | Date / Period |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Appointment | Council was appointed for a 12-month term | August 2024 |
| Scheduled Term Duration | Initially set to run until June 2025 | August 2025 |
| Proposal to Extend Term | Proposed to extend the current council’s term until the end of the year | Until December 2025 |
This effectively extends the current terms by nearly half a year
Given that the work has only just begun and recent reports show that it's actively progressing, I believe an exception can be made in this case.
However, if the goal is to ensure a smoother transition, it might be worth considering a staggered term model — similar to the Security Council — where different members serve overlapping six-month terms. This would preserve continuity and allow for a gradual transition between cohorts
We completely agree that the terms for the current council should be extended into December ‘25. There is no evidence that the current council is underperforming, and we should emphasize continuity especially at this early stage.
As for holding elections for all council members at the same time, this threatens continuity. @Tane had an interesting idea of varying term length in accordance with vote share, while still holding elections at the same time. This makes sense, and balances concerns between uniform elections and the prevention of knowledge loss.
We completely agree that the terms for the current council should be extended into December ‘25. There is no evidence that the current council is underperforming, and we should emphasize continuity especially at this early stage.
As for holding elections for all council members at the same time, this threatens continuity. @Tane had an interesting idea of varying term length in accordance with vote share, while still holding elections at the same time. This makes sense, and balances concerns between uniform elections and the prevention of knowledge loss.
Alternatively, we could adopt a parliamentary model, where the AGV designates one member to remain on the council regardless of election outcome. This way, even if the rest of the council is replaced, there will be one member left for the sake of continuity.
Michigan Blockchain | Jack Verrill | TG @JackVerrill
Being closer than others to AGV, I have seen first hand how council did work during 2024. But also I do know how effectively the initiative, for several reasons already highlighted in other threads, did start effectively operations only in january.
In my opinion it makes sense to allow them to operate for the whole 2025 as a 1y mandate: the alternative is to replace them very soon (in the next month or two) and this would set back the initiative a lot. Reason is simple: current council is not just a council, it effectively participate to the day to day operations of the fund, in a way that is not apparent to most delegates (more on this on the other proposal).
Being closer than others to AGV, I have seen first hand how council did work during 2024. But also I do know how effectively the initiative, for several reasons already highlighted in other threads, did start effectively operations only in january.
In my opinion it makes sense to allow them to operate for the whole 2025 as a 1y mandate: the alternative is to replace them very soon (in the next month or two) and this would set back the initiative a lot. Reason is simple: current council is not just a council, it effectively participate to the day to day operations of the fund, in a way that is not apparent to most delegates (more on this on the other proposal).
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
While I can't decide for AGV, I honestly expect a good portion of the current council to be again candidates for the initiative, knowing how each one of them has been pouring effort into the job; I also expect the DAO to reelect most if not all of them. One thing that could help is better disclosing their scope of work, and the new proposal is a very good start but we can definitely do more.
One thing is unclear for elections tho: last time, it was a 3 members election, with then appointing further 2 members with a confirmation vote from the DAO. Would the mechanics still be the same here?
Thanks @ArbitrumGaming for the proposal!
We support the pragmatic extension of the current AGV Council term to ensure smooth operational continuity, particularly given the critical early execution stage and current resource constraints. It is indeed essential to avoid unnecessary operational disruptions at this juncture.
Thanks @ArbitrumGaming for the proposal!
We support the pragmatic extension of the current AGV Council term to ensure smooth operational continuity, particularly given the critical early execution stage and current resource constraints. It is indeed essential to avoid unnecessary operational disruptions at this juncture.
However, we have reservations about consolidating all Council terms into a unified election cycle. Transitioning the entire Council simultaneously significantly elevates the risk of operational stagnation and knowledge loss. Ideally, staggered transitions would provide continuity and mitigate these risks effectively.
To address this, we suggest considering an adjusted election structure. For example, holding elections in December but varying term lengths based on voting results. Specifically, the lowest-ranked elected member could serve a shorter, half-year term, triggering a mid-year election, or the top-ranked member could have an extended term of 1.5 years. Such an arrangement would preserve stability while ensuring periodic and manageable leadership transitions.
