Type: Constitutional AIP
This AIP proposes to upgrade Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova to ArbOS 40 “Callisto”. Callisto adds support for relevant Execution Layer (EL) changes from Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrade (H1 2025) and a small Arbitrum Stylus related fix. Among the EL changes include a way for Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) to execute smart contract code directly from their addresses (via EIP-7702) and new pre-compiles to efficiently perform operations over the BLS12-381 elliptic curve, including those for BLS signature verification (via EIP-2537).
While the goal of the proposed ArbOS 40 “Callisto” upgrade is to eventually be available for adoption by any Arbitrum Chain, this proposal only concerns the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains, as these two chains are governed by the Arbitrum DAO. On a high level, an ArbOS upgrade can be interpreted as Arbitrum’s equivalent of a hard fork - more can be read about the subject over in Arbitrum ArbOS upgrades here.
Please note that ArbOS Version 40 “Callisto” is a proposed upgrade that builds upon ArbOS version 32 which has been previously adopted by the ArbitrumDAO - this proposal increments the version number to 40 instead of 33 due to technical details that allow for better Orbit chain customizability as explained here.
EIP-7702 introduces a new transaction type that allows Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) to set executable code adding account-abstraction functionality to EOAs such as delegation, batching, sponsorship, and privilege de-escalation. In terms of batching, multiple operations can be combined (ex. token approval, token spend) in an atomic transaction. Transaction sponsorship or paymaster support can also be extended to EOAs. Discrete permissioning can also be enabled with the use of sub-keys.
This EIP introduces precompiles for performing cryptographic operations on the BLS12-381 curve and focuses on enhancing the efficiency and security of those operations. This cryptographic primitive unlocks 120+ bits of security for operations over the pairing-friendly curves, compared to the existing BN254 precompile which only provides 80 bits of security. BLS signature verification is the primary use case for this EIP, though many other applications that rely on point additions, multiplications, and pairing operations stand to gain from this proposal; examples are zkSNARKS, cross-chain interactions, randomness beacons, and vector commitments.
This EIP proposes storing a wider window of block hashes in the storage of a dedicated system contract. Bundling historical block hashes within the state enables efficient data retrieval for applications that require extended access to historical block hashes, like stateless clients. If approved, ArbOS 40 will adapt this EIP to the L2 and store the same number of L2 block hashes that are generated in the time it takes for 8192 L1 blocks to be built - this is approximately 27 hours worth of L2 block hashes.
Currently, Stylus will cache results from calling account_code and account_code_size for a contract that does not exist. We would like to propose a fix to address this so that the call returns the correct information that properly reflects the latest state of the contract’s code or code size. This change will not increment the Stylus version and so a re-activation of already-deployed Stylus contracts will not be required.
Support and implementation for the following EIPs are not planned to be part of ArbOS 40 Callisto:
More detailed information about the specific implementation and versions will be provided closer to the date of the formal on-chain Tally vote. However, this proposal will roughly follow the below steps:
Similar to the ArbOS 20 Atlas upgrade and the Ethereum Dencun hard fork in March 2024, the activation timestamp for ArbOS 40 Callisto will be targeted for roughly the same timestamp as when Ethereum Mainnet hard forks. At the time of writing and as of the latest All Core Devs Consensus (ACDC) Call #150 held on Feb 6th, 2025, the timestamp of the Ethereum Mainnet fork for Pectra is targeted for April 8, 2025. The tentative dates for Ethereum Holesky and Ethereum Sepolia to upgrade to Pectra are Feb 24, 2025 and March 5, 2025, respectively. The exact slot for mainnet Ethereum is expected to be chosen on March 6, 2025.
Given that the L1 client teams are planning to release their Pectra-supported versions by Feb 13, 2025 and that the required steps for a Constitutional AIP can take up to ~41.4 days (not including engineering and audit), there is a strong likelihood that ArbOS 40 Callisto will be activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova after Ethereum Mainnet upgrades to Pectra (if the ArbitrumDAO votes to adopt this proposal). We will endeavor to keep this proposal updated as timelines become more concrete.
Type: Constitutional AIP
This AIP proposes to upgrade Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova to ArbOS 40 “Callisto”. Callisto adds support for relevant Execution Layer (EL) changes from Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrade (H1 2025) and a small Arbitrum Stylus related fix. Among the EL changes include a way for Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) to execute smart contract code directly from their addresses (via EIP-7702) and new pre-compiles to efficiently perform operations over the BLS12-381 elliptic curve, including those for BLS signature verification (via EIP-2537).
While the goal of the proposed ArbOS 40 “Callisto” upgrade is to eventually be available for adoption by any Arbitrum Chain, this proposal only concerns the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains, as these two chains are governed by the Arbitrum DAO. On a high level, an ArbOS upgrade can be interpreted as Arbitrum’s equivalent of a hard fork - more can be read about the subject over in Arbitrum ArbOS upgrades here.
Please note that ArbOS Version 40 “Callisto” is a proposed upgrade that builds upon ArbOS version 32 which has been previously adopted by the ArbitrumDAO - this proposal increments the version number to 40 instead of 33 due to technical details that allow for better Orbit chain customizability as explained here.
EIP-7702 introduces a new transaction type that allows Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) to set executable code adding account-abstraction functionality to EOAs such as delegation, batching, sponsorship, and privilege de-escalation. In terms of batching, multiple operations can be combined (ex. token approval, token spend) in an atomic transaction. Transaction sponsorship or paymaster support can also be extended to EOAs. Discrete permissioning can also be enabled with the use of sub-keys.
This EIP introduces precompiles for performing cryptographic operations on the BLS12-381 curve and focuses on enhancing the efficiency and security of those operations. This cryptographic primitive unlocks 120+ bits of security for operations over the pairing-friendly curves, compared to the existing BN254 precompile which only provides 80 bits of security. BLS signature verification is the primary use case for this EIP, though many other applications that rely on point additions, multiplications, and pairing operations stand to gain from this proposal; examples are zkSNARKS, cross-chain interactions, randomness beacons, and vector commitments.
This EIP proposes storing a wider window of block hashes in the storage of a dedicated system contract. Bundling historical block hashes within the state enables efficient data retrieval for applications that require extended access to historical block hashes, like stateless clients. If approved, ArbOS 40 will adapt this EIP to the L2 and store the same number of L2 block hashes that are generated in the time it takes for 8192 L1 blocks to be built - this is approximately 27 hours worth of L2 block hashes.
Currently, Stylus will cache results from calling account_code and account_code_size for a contract that does not exist. We would like to propose a fix to address this so that the call returns the correct information that properly reflects the latest state of the contract’s code or code size. This change will not increment the Stylus version and so a re-activation of already-deployed Stylus contracts will not be required.
Support and implementation for the following EIPs are not planned to be part of ArbOS 40 Callisto:
More detailed information about the specific implementation and versions will be provided closer to the date of the formal on-chain Tally vote. However, this proposal will roughly follow the below steps:
Similar to the ArbOS 20 Atlas upgrade and the Ethereum Dencun hard fork in March 2024, the activation timestamp for ArbOS 40 Callisto will be targeted for roughly the same timestamp as when Ethereum Mainnet hard forks. At the time of writing and as of the latest All Core Devs Consensus (ACDC) Call #150 held on Feb 6th, 2025, the timestamp of the Ethereum Mainnet fork for Pectra is targeted for April 8, 2025. The tentative dates for Ethereum Holesky and Ethereum Sepolia to upgrade to Pectra are Feb 24, 2025 and March 5, 2025, respectively. The exact slot for mainnet Ethereum is expected to be chosen on March 6, 2025.
Given that the L1 client teams are planning to release their Pectra-supported versions by Feb 13, 2025 and that the required steps for a Constitutional AIP can take up to ~41.4 days (not including engineering and audit), there is a strong likelihood that ArbOS 40 Callisto will be activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova after Ethereum Mainnet upgrades to Pectra (if the ArbitrumDAO votes to adopt this proposal). We will endeavor to keep this proposal updated as timelines become more concrete.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/29
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/29
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-101): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-101
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-101): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-101
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/47?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/18?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/63
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/62?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/61?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/60?u=hawheik
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/57?u=griff
this will bring Arbitrum up to par with Ethereum functionality. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/55?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/7?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/52?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/51
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/17
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/30?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/33?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/32?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/23?u=blockworksresearch
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
I have no idea of the risks this upgrade will entail without seeing the results of an independent audit to the smart contract code. And I also think the governance process for this proposal has not been followed in the best way it could. I think the Arbitrum DAO delegates should be asked to vote, even on a temperature check, in as much of a fully fleshed out proposal, as possible. This proposal is not ready to be voted on by delegates, in my opinion, in the sense that if delegates vote against in this temp check, will the work on this upgrade stop? No, it won’t. So I don’t understand why delegates are being asked to vote on this proposal, at this point. After the code is complete and the audits are done, then it makes sense for delegates to decide on the risk vs. reward of upgrading the Arbitrum One and Nova contracts, with this proposal. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/30?u=paulofonseca
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-86): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-86
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-86): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-86
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/29
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/28?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/26?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/24?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/22?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/17
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/21?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/2?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/20
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/19?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/18?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/16?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/14?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/13?u=tempetechie
Upgrade the operating system to make it faster and smarter.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/5
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/124?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/11?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/7?u=castlecapital
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-101): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-101
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-101): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-101
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/47?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/18?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/63
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/62?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/61?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/60?u=hawheik
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/57?u=griff
this will bring Arbitrum up to par with Ethereum functionality. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/55?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/7?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/52?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/51
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/17
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/30?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/33?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/32?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/23?u=blockworksresearch
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
I have no idea of the risks this upgrade will entail without seeing the results of an independent audit to the smart contract code. And I also think the governance process for this proposal has not been followed in the best way it could. I think the Arbitrum DAO delegates should be asked to vote, even on a temperature check, in as much of a fully fleshed out proposal, as possible. This proposal is not ready to be voted on by delegates, in my opinion, in the sense that if delegates vote against in this temp check, will the work on this upgrade stop? No, it won’t. So I don’t understand why delegates are being asked to vote on this proposal, at this point. After the code is complete and the audits are done, then it makes sense for delegates to decide on the risk vs. reward of upgrading the Arbitrum One and Nova contracts, with this proposal. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/30?u=paulofonseca
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-86): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-86
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-86): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-86
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/29
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/28?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/26?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/25?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/24?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/22?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/17
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/21?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/2?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/20
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/19?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/18?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/16?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/14?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/13?u=tempetechie
Upgrade the operating system to make it faster and smarter.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/5
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/124?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/11?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/7?u=castlecapital
Hello! We’re preparing to propose an upgrade to the Arbitrum Nitro stack to support Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra hard fork, via ArbOS 40 Callisto and wanted to give our ecosystem partners and the ArbitrumDAO a status update. Please refer to the original AIP forum post above, for details.
At the time of writing, the proposal to bring Pectra's changes to Arbitrum via ArbOS 40 has already passed a temperature check vote on Snapshot and a security audit has recently wrapped up.
Hello! We’re preparing to propose an upgrade to the Arbitrum Nitro stack to support Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra hard fork, via ArbOS 40 Callisto and wanted to give our ecosystem partners and the ArbitrumDAO a status update. Please refer to the original AIP forum post above, for details.
At the time of writing, the proposal to bring Pectra's changes to Arbitrum via ArbOS 40 has already passed a temperature check vote on Snapshot and a security audit has recently wrapped up.
Below are a few critical dates, around what will happen next, that we wanted to communicate with the ecosystem:
Further documentation, upgrade instructions, and release notes for Nitro v3.6.x will be shared shortly. Node operators should ensure that their infrastructure is prepared for the Arbitrum Sepolia upgrade.
We recommend subscribing to https://t.me/arbitrumnodeupgrade for regular updates about upgrade notices like this.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/6
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/7
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/8
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/21
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/30
Hello! We’re preparing to propose an upgrade to the Arbitrum Nitro stack to support Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra hard fork, via ArbOS 40 Callisto and wanted to give our ecosystem partners and the ArbitrumDAO a status update. Please refer to the original AIP forum post above, for details.
At the time of writing, the proposal to bring Pectra's changes to Arbitrum via ArbOS 40 has already passed a temperature check vote on Snapshot and a security audit has recently wrapped up.
Hello! We’re preparing to propose an upgrade to the Arbitrum Nitro stack to support Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra hard fork, via ArbOS 40 Callisto and wanted to give our ecosystem partners and the ArbitrumDAO a status update. Please refer to the original AIP forum post above, for details.
At the time of writing, the proposal to bring Pectra's changes to Arbitrum via ArbOS 40 has already passed a temperature check vote on Snapshot and a security audit has recently wrapped up.
Below are a few critical dates, around what will happen next, that we wanted to communicate with the ecosystem:
Further documentation, upgrade instructions, and release notes for Nitro v3.6.x will be shared shortly. Node operators should ensure that their infrastructure is prepared for the Arbitrum Sepolia upgrade.
We recommend subscribing to https://t.me/arbitrumnodeupgrade for regular updates about upgrade notices like this.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/3
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/6
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/7
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/8
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/21
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/30
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
There are no strong motives to be against, it is a necessary update. We confirmed that the issue found through the security audit has been addressed. Considering all these facts, we have voted FOR.
Voting in favor for the same reasons I mentioned for the off-chain vote: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/26. I simply believe this proposal brings meaningful improvements that we should actively support, as it enhances aspects that are crucial for the long-term growth of the ecosystem
This is the first proposal where I find myself genuinely torn. It contains several technical details that are hard for one person to fully assess — especially for someone like me who doesn’t come from a developer background.
From what I’ve gathered through the discussion and the proposal itself, this seems to be a meaningful improvement for Arbitrum, leveraging work already done on Ethereum. In that sense, we are adopting a ready-made enhancement.
This is the first proposal where I find myself genuinely torn. It contains several technical details that are hard for one person to fully assess — especially for someone like me who doesn’t come from a developer background.
From what I’ve gathered through the discussion and the proposal itself, this seems to be a meaningful improvement for Arbitrum, leveraging work already done on Ethereum. In that sense, we are adopting a ready-made enhancement.
Based on that, I’m leaning FOR. Still, I recognize that this proposal demands further study — especially on my part. I’ll continue reading and learning to better understand the full implications.
In this proposal, some of the EIPs from the Pectra Upgrade were proposed for ArbOS. We believe that the chosen proposals for upgrade were enough for alignment with Ethereum. Also, the application plan and period are well organized. So, we as ITU Blockchain Delegation Committee, have voted in favour of this proposal.
Supportive of this proposal without any objection.
I voted FOR this proposal https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/cp0x-delegate-communication-thread/22217/184?u=cp0x
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 previously supported the proposal during the temp-check vote while committing to verifying the executable payload once the proposal went for an onchain vote. We asked our research team to once again look into the proposal and verify its contents before we cast our vote.
We vote for this proposal.
We voted for the measure at the Snapshot vote and continue to support it because EIP-7702 account abstraction and the new BLS12-381 precompiles will materially improve developer flexibility and end-user experience. Timely alignment with Ethereum avoids fragmentation, preserves shared security assumptions, and ensures applications can rely on consistent functionality across layers.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR.
Voting FOR the proposal due to its critical UX enhancements for Arbitrum users, essential for maintaining competitiveness. However, I share concerns that implementation should have been planned with greater foresight.
I have voted "Yes" to this proposal on Tally. There are significant advantages to staying "in-sync" with Ethereum, and significant disadvantages not to, so it's a simple decision.
I appreciate @paulofonseca linking the audit reports, and I wish they had been provided more "up-front" rather than relying on a delegate to link them.
I have voted FOR this proposal because it is key to have improvements from Pectra on Arbitrum Chain and I don't see any points of not doing it.
In my opinion this kind of proposal could be done in an Optimistic way, @Arbitrum and @offchainlabs could proposed it to the DAO with a security report, if after 2 or 3 days no major Delegate put a veto or asked for a vote, it is automatically implemented. This could be a way to gain in efficiency cf @KlausBrave comment and avoid to have all delegates to vote on a proposal that is making consensus.
I have voted in favour of this proposal, ratifying my offchain vote, not much to add and don't want to overcomplicate my rationale, this was a go-forward
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/37?u=olimpio
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
Rationale
There are no strong motives to be against, it is a necessary update. We confirmed that the issue found through the security audit has been addressed. Considering all these facts, we have voted FOR.
Voting in favor for the same reasons I mentioned for the off-chain vote: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/26. I simply believe this proposal brings meaningful improvements that we should actively support, as it enhances aspects that are crucial for the long-term growth of the ecosystem
This is the first proposal where I find myself genuinely torn. It contains several technical details that are hard for one person to fully assess — especially for someone like me who doesn’t come from a developer background.
From what I’ve gathered through the discussion and the proposal itself, this seems to be a meaningful improvement for Arbitrum, leveraging work already done on Ethereum. In that sense, we are adopting a ready-made enhancement.
This is the first proposal where I find myself genuinely torn. It contains several technical details that are hard for one person to fully assess — especially for someone like me who doesn’t come from a developer background.
From what I’ve gathered through the discussion and the proposal itself, this seems to be a meaningful improvement for Arbitrum, leveraging work already done on Ethereum. In that sense, we are adopting a ready-made enhancement.
Based on that, I’m leaning FOR. Still, I recognize that this proposal demands further study — especially on my part. I’ll continue reading and learning to better understand the full implications.
In this proposal, some of the EIPs from the Pectra Upgrade were proposed for ArbOS. We believe that the chosen proposals for upgrade were enough for alignment with Ethereum. Also, the application plan and period are well organized. So, we as ITU Blockchain Delegation Committee, have voted in favour of this proposal.
Supportive of this proposal without any objection.
I voted FOR this proposal https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/cp0x-delegate-communication-thread/22217/184?u=cp0x
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 previously supported the proposal during the temp-check vote while committing to verifying the executable payload once the proposal went for an onchain vote. We asked our research team to once again look into the proposal and verify its contents before we cast our vote.
We vote for this proposal.
We voted for the measure at the Snapshot vote and continue to support it because EIP-7702 account abstraction and the new BLS12-381 precompiles will materially improve developer flexibility and end-user experience. Timely alignment with Ethereum avoids fragmentation, preserves shared security assumptions, and ensures applications can rely on consistent functionality across layers.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR.
Voting FOR the proposal due to its critical UX enhancements for Arbitrum users, essential for maintaining competitiveness. However, I share concerns that implementation should have been planned with greater foresight.
I have voted "Yes" to this proposal on Tally. There are significant advantages to staying "in-sync" with Ethereum, and significant disadvantages not to, so it's a simple decision.
I appreciate @paulofonseca linking the audit reports, and I wish they had been provided more "up-front" rather than relying on a delegate to link them.
I have voted FOR this proposal because it is key to have improvements from Pectra on Arbitrum Chain and I don't see any points of not doing it.
In my opinion this kind of proposal could be done in an Optimistic way, @Arbitrum and @offchainlabs could proposed it to the DAO with a security report, if after 2 or 3 days no major Delegate put a veto or asked for a vote, it is automatically implemented. This could be a way to gain in efficiency cf @KlausBrave comment and avoid to have all delegates to vote on a proposal that is making consensus.
I have voted in favour of this proposal, ratifying my offchain vote, not much to add and don't want to overcomplicate my rationale, this was a go-forward
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/37?u=olimpio
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 previously supported the proposal during the temp-check vote while committing to verifying the executable payload once the proposal went for an onchain vote. We asked our research team to once again look into the proposal and verify its contents before we cast our vote.
As outlined, the proposal’s execution will only introduce the changes described, which is adding support for the relevant EIPs that are mentioned. Our research team also verified that the WASM root in the proposal corresponds to the one from the stated node repository commit.
With that in mind, and since the issue found in the security audit has been resolved, we’re voting in favor of the proposal.
I voted FOR. This AIP ensures Arbitrum's stack is up to date with all the enhancements of Pectra, let's get this in asap.
Optimism got this done within 48 hours of ETH's Petra update, we are still voting on it, in the future I'd like to see more forward planning from @Arbitrum and @offchainlabs to have the audit, and vote lined up earlier in sync with next ETH protocol upgrades. Speed is a competitive advantage, builders wanting to experiment and prototype with new transformative functionality will pick the tech provider who's live and ready.
I voted FOR. This AIP ensures Arbitrum's stack is up to date with all the enhancements of Pectra, let's get this in asap.
Optimism got this done within 48 hours of ETH's Petra update, we are still voting on it, in the future I'd like to see more forward planning from @Arbitrum and @offchainlabs to have the audit, and vote lined up earlier in sync with next ETH protocol upgrades. Speed is a competitive advantage, builders wanting to experiment and prototype with new transformative functionality will pick the tech provider who's live and ready.
FOR: 185 AGAINST: 2 ABSTAIN: 1 Overwhelmingly Supported
• Almost every voter came forward stating “true” – indicating strong overall support for the Callisto upgrade.
• The minimal amount of dissenting “false” votes suggest some reservations but lacked any detailed technical criticism.
FOR: 185 AGAINST: 2 ABSTAIN: 1 Overwhelmingly Supported
• Almost every voter came forward stating “true” – indicating strong overall support for the Callisto upgrade.
• The minimal amount of dissenting “false” votes suggest some reservations but lacked any detailed technical criticism.
• In essence, the proponents believe that ArbOS 40 “Callisto” is a necessary, forward‐looking upgrade that aligns Arbitrum with Ethereum’s imminent Pectra upgrade and improves functionality (via EIP‑7702, EIP‑2537, and EIP‑2935).
In Favor:
– The upgrade increases compatibility with Ethereum’s evolving execution layer.
– It unlocks advanced features for EOAs (account abstraction, batching, sponsorship) and enhances security through improved cryptographic precompiles.
– The proposal is seen as a natural evolution that will improve developer experience and create a robust platform for new dApps.
Against:
– The limited “false” votes hint at concerns regarding synchronization timing with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade and potential implementation complexities (e.g. upgrade coordination or unforeseen edge cases).
– There is a latent risk if the upgrade’s activation lags or if developer tooling and contingency protocols are insufficiently prepared to address unexpected issues.
Enhancing the proposal with a dedicated contingency plan, clearer milestone reporting, and independent verification was recommended to address fringe concerns. However, the vast majority of agents supported this proposal as is.
We’ve voted FOR this proposal.
Since this AIP ensures Arbitrum stays compatible and aligned with those changes, especially through enhanced Stylus support.
For us, maintaining interoperability with Ethereum and staying in sync with its technical evolution is essential. We support it as a move that reinforces ecosystem cohesion.
voting FOR on the current onchain vote because this will bring Arbitrum up to par with Ethereum functionality.
Voted FOR
the proposal has been well evaluated by technical bodies and is key to keep up with ethereum development
I voted FOR. This is an upgrade that brings to Arbitrum several new features and keep the chain in sync with the latest version of ETH Mainnet.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
We are in support of the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it introduces meaningful improvements with the Pectra upgrade. With the security audit concluding positively, we are confident in supporting the proposal during the on-chain vote. This upgrade will also help Arbitrum stay up to date with changes happening on Ethereum.
Voted YES on Tally. I believe staying aligned with Ethereum's Pectra upgrade is crucial for Arbitrum's growth.
Petra is running well on mainnet, and I trust the Arbitrum devs to deliver another solid implementation. Let's do it!
gm, voted FOR - supporting Pectra and the other updates on Arbitrum.
@Arbitrum would be great if next time you could include a brief summary (on the forum or Tally) outlining how the audit findings - especially high severity ones - have been addressed.
Thanks!
here is the security audit https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/2025-04-offchainlabs-arbos40nitro-securityreview.pdf
Voting for, this is one of those “of course we’re doing this” votes. Staying in sync with Ethereum and making things smoother for everyone.
I’m voting yes cause this update helps Arbitrum stay up to date with Ethereum changes, like making wallets more smart. Also it fix small bug and makes things work smoother for devs and users.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal:
Following the rationale posted previously, he auction be made available.
The instant buy will be priced at 1% (instead of 0.1%) of our voting power’s worth in ETH terms. This is calculated as 18,422,193 ARB * 1%, which equals approximately 29.25 ETH.
@arbitrum or @offchainlabs where can we see this security audit?
delegates should only vote on this major onchain proposal after seeing the security audit output, right?
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We originally supported this constitutional proposal to activate ArbOS 40 during the temp check. Also, with the positive conclusion of the security audit, we were confident in supporting the proposal during the onchain vote.
Thanks for the detailed clarifications.
if an Orbit chain wanted to modify ArbOS 40 and release their modifications as ArbOS 41, then the official Offchain Labs ArbOS release versions would not conflict since the next official version would be ArbOS 50.
Will the Arbitrum upgrade be delayed due to the mainnet upgrade suspension?
After two buggy test runs of Pectra, Ethereum's biggest upgrade since 2024, the network's developers decided to postpone the upgrade pending further tests
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/03/06/ethereum-developers-extend-pectra-test-window-following
I wanted to clarify whether there were any calculations on future profits from commissions? The thing is that Blobs have changed, so Arbitrum should, in theory, give less to the main Ethereum network for transferring data from Arbitrum.
Will Arbitrum receive more for commissions because of this? If so, how much?
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
This AIP brings essential Ethereum Pectra changes while maintaining Arbitrum’s unique optimizations. Plus, EIP-7702 is a game-changer for EOAs, enabling account abstraction natively so we were happy to support this update.
LobbyFi voted abstain on snapshot since none of the community pools reached the needed threshold, which is at 10% of the instant buy which has been chosen for 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 previously supported the proposal during the temp-check vote while committing to verifying the executable payload once the proposal went for an onchain vote. We asked our research team to once again look into the proposal and verify its contents before we cast our vote.
As outlined, the proposal’s execution will only introduce the changes described, which is adding support for the relevant EIPs that are mentioned. Our research team also verified that the WASM root in the proposal corresponds to the one from the stated node repository commit.
With that in mind, and since the issue found in the security audit has been resolved, we’re voting in favor of the proposal.
I voted FOR. This AIP ensures Arbitrum's stack is up to date with all the enhancements of Pectra, let's get this in asap.
Optimism got this done within 48 hours of ETH's Petra update, we are still voting on it, in the future I'd like to see more forward planning from @Arbitrum and @offchainlabs to have the audit, and vote lined up earlier in sync with next ETH protocol upgrades. Speed is a competitive advantage, builders wanting to experiment and prototype with new transformative functionality will pick the tech provider who's live and ready.
I voted FOR. This AIP ensures Arbitrum's stack is up to date with all the enhancements of Pectra, let's get this in asap.
Optimism got this done within 48 hours of ETH's Petra update, we are still voting on it, in the future I'd like to see more forward planning from @Arbitrum and @offchainlabs to have the audit, and vote lined up earlier in sync with next ETH protocol upgrades. Speed is a competitive advantage, builders wanting to experiment and prototype with new transformative functionality will pick the tech provider who's live and ready.
FOR: 185 AGAINST: 2 ABSTAIN: 1 Overwhelmingly Supported
• Almost every voter came forward stating “true” – indicating strong overall support for the Callisto upgrade.
• The minimal amount of dissenting “false” votes suggest some reservations but lacked any detailed technical criticism.
FOR: 185 AGAINST: 2 ABSTAIN: 1 Overwhelmingly Supported
• Almost every voter came forward stating “true” – indicating strong overall support for the Callisto upgrade.
• The minimal amount of dissenting “false” votes suggest some reservations but lacked any detailed technical criticism.
• In essence, the proponents believe that ArbOS 40 “Callisto” is a necessary, forward‐looking upgrade that aligns Arbitrum with Ethereum’s imminent Pectra upgrade and improves functionality (via EIP‑7702, EIP‑2537, and EIP‑2935).
In Favor:
– The upgrade increases compatibility with Ethereum’s evolving execution layer.
– It unlocks advanced features for EOAs (account abstraction, batching, sponsorship) and enhances security through improved cryptographic precompiles.
– The proposal is seen as a natural evolution that will improve developer experience and create a robust platform for new dApps.
Against:
– The limited “false” votes hint at concerns regarding synchronization timing with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade and potential implementation complexities (e.g. upgrade coordination or unforeseen edge cases).
– There is a latent risk if the upgrade’s activation lags or if developer tooling and contingency protocols are insufficiently prepared to address unexpected issues.
Enhancing the proposal with a dedicated contingency plan, clearer milestone reporting, and independent verification was recommended to address fringe concerns. However, the vast majority of agents supported this proposal as is.
We’ve voted FOR this proposal.
Since this AIP ensures Arbitrum stays compatible and aligned with those changes, especially through enhanced Stylus support.
For us, maintaining interoperability with Ethereum and staying in sync with its technical evolution is essential. We support it as a move that reinforces ecosystem cohesion.
voting FOR on the current onchain vote because this will bring Arbitrum up to par with Ethereum functionality.
Voted FOR
the proposal has been well evaluated by technical bodies and is key to keep up with ethereum development
I voted FOR. This is an upgrade that brings to Arbitrum several new features and keep the chain in sync with the latest version of ETH Mainnet.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
We are in support of the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it introduces meaningful improvements with the Pectra upgrade. With the security audit concluding positively, we are confident in supporting the proposal during the on-chain vote. This upgrade will also help Arbitrum stay up to date with changes happening on Ethereum.
Voted YES on Tally. I believe staying aligned with Ethereum's Pectra upgrade is crucial for Arbitrum's growth.
Petra is running well on mainnet, and I trust the Arbitrum devs to deliver another solid implementation. Let's do it!
gm, voted FOR - supporting Pectra and the other updates on Arbitrum.
@Arbitrum would be great if next time you could include a brief summary (on the forum or Tally) outlining how the audit findings - especially high severity ones - have been addressed.
Thanks!
here is the security audit https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/2025-04-offchainlabs-arbos40nitro-securityreview.pdf
Voting for, this is one of those “of course we’re doing this” votes. Staying in sync with Ethereum and making things smoother for everyone.
I’m voting yes cause this update helps Arbitrum stay up to date with Ethereum changes, like making wallets more smart. Also it fix small bug and makes things work smoother for devs and users.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal:
Following the rationale posted previously, he auction be made available.
The instant buy will be priced at 1% (instead of 0.1%) of our voting power’s worth in ETH terms. This is calculated as 18,422,193 ARB * 1%, which equals approximately 29.25 ETH.
@arbitrum or @offchainlabs where can we see this security audit?
delegates should only vote on this major onchain proposal after seeing the security audit output, right?
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We originally supported this constitutional proposal to activate ArbOS 40 during the temp check. Also, with the positive conclusion of the security audit, we were confident in supporting the proposal during the onchain vote.
Thanks for the detailed clarifications.
if an Orbit chain wanted to modify ArbOS 40 and release their modifications as ArbOS 41, then the official Offchain Labs ArbOS release versions would not conflict since the next official version would be ArbOS 50.
Will the Arbitrum upgrade be delayed due to the mainnet upgrade suspension?
After two buggy test runs of Pectra, Ethereum's biggest upgrade since 2024, the network's developers decided to postpone the upgrade pending further tests
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/03/06/ethereum-developers-extend-pectra-test-window-following
I wanted to clarify whether there were any calculations on future profits from commissions? The thing is that Blobs have changed, so Arbitrum should, in theory, give less to the main Ethereum network for transferring data from Arbitrum.
Will Arbitrum receive more for commissions because of this? If so, how much?
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
This AIP brings essential Ethereum Pectra changes while maintaining Arbitrum’s unique optimizations. Plus, EIP-7702 is a game-changer for EOAs, enabling account abstraction natively so we were happy to support this update.
LobbyFi voted abstain on snapshot since none of the community pools reached the needed threshold, which is at 10% of the instant buy which has been chosen for this proposal.
Thanks for the detailed clarifications.
if an Orbit chain wanted to modify ArbOS 40 and release their modifications as ArbOS 41, then the official Offchain Labs ArbOS release versions would not conflict since the next official version would be ArbOS 50.
Makes sense! Have you considered introducing the minor versions to the ArbOS like the semantic versioning? We think it's cleaner.
We generally recommend Orbit chains upgrade to a new ArbOS release approximately 30 days after the release has been in production on Arbitrum One or Arbitrum Nova
Great to know! It would be great to be clarified in the documentation as well.
I voted for to this proposal, I'm in favour of keeping ARB and ETH's roadmaps aligned.
lets goooooo. I am excited for this upgrade! 7702 will unlock some cool usecases. Voting in favour here!
I will be voting FOR in Snapshot. I believe Arbitrum should continue to be aligned as much as possible with Ethereum, and we should also leverage the position Arbitrum has within the ecosystem in this regard.
We should thoroughly follow every upgrade made in Mainnet and be as prepared as possible for its correct implementation.
I vote in favor of this proposal in the temp check, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to be ready for the Pectra fork on Mainnet. However, my on-chain vote will depend on analyzing—within my capabilities and relying on the assessment of technical experts—the progress of the outlined roadmap.
I vote in favor of this proposal in the temp check, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to be ready for the Pectra fork on Mainnet. However, my on-chain vote will depend on analyzing—within my capabilities and relying on the assessment of technical experts—the progress of the outlined roadmap.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR. Below the rationale:
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 are in favour of this proposal.
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 are in favour of this proposal.
With the advent of Spectra and its technical changes, ArbOS Callisto aims to devise an upgrade that will definitely create added value for the ecosystem. Especially so for account abstraction applications. The utilisation of Spectra’s upgrade — incorporating transaction sponsorships for covering user gas expenses with auth signatures, batching transactions to eliminate additional user friction for using apps (like having to pay for approvals and do a trade), and privilege de-escalation — can reduce security risks for users.
Additionally, the other upgrades are very clear: EIP-2537 for improved security for applications, EIP-2935 serving the data retrieval of block hashes to configure on top of clients, and Stylus fix amount to a reasonable request.
Noting that there are technical considerations pertaining to the various environments (into Nitro) and sequence of implementations (for audits and test developments), we do believe that this effort is worthwhile and will be completed diligently. Therefore, we are for approval of the proposal.
voting Abstain on the current offchain vote because I have no idea of the risks this upgrade will entail without seeing the results of an independent audit to the smart contract code. And I also think the governance process for this proposal has not been followed in the best way it could. I think the Arbitrum DAO delegates should be asked to vote, even on a temperature check, in as much of a fully fleshed out proposal, as possible. This proposal is not ready to be voted on by delegates, in my opinion, in the sense that if delegates vote against in this temp check, will the work on this upgrade stop? No, it won't. So I don't understand why delegates are being asked to vote on this proposal, at this point. After the code is complete and the audits are done, then it makes sense for delegates to decide on the risk vs. reward of upgrading the Arbitrum One and Nova contracts, with this proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I'm excited about Pectra because I think it will significantly improve Arbitrum UX by reducing the need for multiple signatures to perform a single transaction and by allowing Dapps to enable more advanced functionality directly e.g. paymaster support.
Voting "For", as I have stated in other upgrades like this - while I am not technically proficient enough to do a deep dive review on these types of things... I trust the teams involved with this project and the capable minds of the DAO to dive into those items. At a 10,000 foot glance, the upgrades seem worth implementing and I generally favor any upgrades that continue to keep Arbitrum at the forefront tech-wise.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I will just confirm my "Yes" vote on Tally. Nothing in my opinion has changed since February's temp check
The proposed changes help to bring Pectra relevant modifications to Arbitrum, and also advance account abstraction in the ecosystem. In this sense, I see no reason to oppose this initiative, as it seeks to bring new technical possibilities for users.
EIP-7702 is especially interesting from a defi perspective because it brings new capabilities to the wallet and smart contract ecosystem, specifically batching. I expect these to be applied to Orbit chains in a subsequent update.
The proposed changes help to bring Pectra relevant modifications to Arbitrum, and also advance account abstraction in the ecosystem. In this sense, I see no reason to oppose this initiative, as it seeks to bring new technical possibilities for users.
EIP-7702 is especially interesting from a defi perspective because it brings new capabilities to the wallet and smart contract ecosystem, specifically batching. I expect these to be applied to Orbit chains in a subsequent update.
The proposal has a low risk associated, with any kinks being ironed out during the test period in Devnets and Sepolia. Voting FOR this one.
Voting in favor. I have no technical background but from a logical POV/overall understanding it makes sense that some changes are needed with Pectra + I am trusting the AF on this.
The time lag struck me as odd, which is why I would love to see the question below answered.
Voting in favor. I have no technical background but from a logical POV/overall understanding it makes sense that some changes are needed with Pectra + I am trusting the AF on this.
The time lag struck me as odd, which is why I would love to see the question below answered.
Can something not work correctly in Arbitrum if the Ethereum network is already updated, but Arbitrum is not?
I’m voting in favor of this proposal cause I feel like it only makes sense to support necessary upgrades like these, Arbitrum should keep up with EIPs.
I am voting for this proposal because it will upgrade Arbitrum to support important new Ethereum features, like letting normal accounts run smart contracts and improving security with better cryptography. Arbitrum needs to correspond to his L1. And this proposal will help to implement it. It’s very good that the developers also don’t forget about Arbitrum Nova. I definitely vote for
I'm VOTING YES! This AIP keeps Arbitrum aligned with Ethereum's innovations while strengthening our security and empowering builders. Who would vote against this?
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), 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), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
We support the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it ensures Arbitrum stays in sync with Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrades and key EIPs. This upgrade will improve functionality, security, and developer experience while keeping the ecosystem efficient and future-ready.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We have reviewed EIPs to be included (and not included) in the Callisto upgrade and we find the rationale behind each decision clear and articulated. We are particularly excited about the EIP-7702 change to be included on Arbitrum One and Nova for users on those chains as we believe the change will drastically improve the user experience over time.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We have reviewed EIPs to be included (and not included) in the Callisto upgrade and we find the rationale behind each decision clear and articulated. We are particularly excited about the EIP-7702 change to be included on Arbitrum One and Nova for users on those chains as we believe the change will drastically improve the user experience over time.
We have a couple of questions:
Even reading the detailed document, it wasn't clear what the "technical details" are and why this change better serves the Orbit chain customizability. Could you clarify them?
While the goal of the proposed ArbOS 40 “Callisto” upgrade is to eventually be available for adoption by any Arbitrum Chain, this proposal only concerns the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains
While it makes sense that the proposal currently targets only Arbitrum One and Nova, how will these changes be adapted and applied to Orbit chains going forward?
Despite not having a technical background, my initial thought was that we’re leveling up our gear to stay aligned with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade, and that makes sense. Also, I trust Arb devs, and there are no major concerns in this thread, which is why I’m voting for it.
I have voted in favor of this proposal. Even if I am not deeply technical, Callisto seems to be a crucial update to ensure Arbitrum's compatibility with Ethereum post-Pectra. I don't find anything controversial in this proposal and would like to thanks Arbitrum devs for their work on this.
Voted For: This upgrade is necessary to follow the Ethereum roadmap and also aligns Arbitrum with all EIPs. The Callisto upgrade will bring better functionality and developer experiences. I have full trust in the development team to execute on this upgrade. This is why I support the proposal.
We support ArbOS 40 "Callisto" because it prepares us for Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrade in a straightforward way. It lets EOAs run smart contract code (EIP-7702), boosts our cryptographic operations with enhanced BLS support (EIP-2537), and extends access to historical block data (EIP-2935), along with a minor Stylus caching fix. Honestly, there’s not much more to add, it’s a clean, necessary upgrade.
Thanks for the detailed clarifications.
if an Orbit chain wanted to modify ArbOS 40 and release their modifications as ArbOS 41, then the official Offchain Labs ArbOS release versions would not conflict since the next official version would be ArbOS 50.
Makes sense! Have you considered introducing the minor versions to the ArbOS like the semantic versioning? We think it's cleaner.
We generally recommend Orbit chains upgrade to a new ArbOS release approximately 30 days after the release has been in production on Arbitrum One or Arbitrum Nova
Great to know! It would be great to be clarified in the documentation as well.
I voted for to this proposal, I'm in favour of keeping ARB and ETH's roadmaps aligned.
lets goooooo. I am excited for this upgrade! 7702 will unlock some cool usecases. Voting in favour here!
I will be voting FOR in Snapshot. I believe Arbitrum should continue to be aligned as much as possible with Ethereum, and we should also leverage the position Arbitrum has within the ecosystem in this regard.
We should thoroughly follow every upgrade made in Mainnet and be as prepared as possible for its correct implementation.
I vote in favor of this proposal in the temp check, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to be ready for the Pectra fork on Mainnet. However, my on-chain vote will depend on analyzing—within my capabilities and relying on the assessment of technical experts—the progress of the outlined roadmap.
I vote in favor of this proposal in the temp check, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to be ready for the Pectra fork on Mainnet. However, my on-chain vote will depend on analyzing—within my capabilities and relying on the assessment of technical experts—the progress of the outlined roadmap.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR. Below the rationale:
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 are in favour of this proposal.
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 are in favour of this proposal.
With the advent of Spectra and its technical changes, ArbOS Callisto aims to devise an upgrade that will definitely create added value for the ecosystem. Especially so for account abstraction applications. The utilisation of Spectra’s upgrade — incorporating transaction sponsorships for covering user gas expenses with auth signatures, batching transactions to eliminate additional user friction for using apps (like having to pay for approvals and do a trade), and privilege de-escalation — can reduce security risks for users.
Additionally, the other upgrades are very clear: EIP-2537 for improved security for applications, EIP-2935 serving the data retrieval of block hashes to configure on top of clients, and Stylus fix amount to a reasonable request.
Noting that there are technical considerations pertaining to the various environments (into Nitro) and sequence of implementations (for audits and test developments), we do believe that this effort is worthwhile and will be completed diligently. Therefore, we are for approval of the proposal.
voting Abstain on the current offchain vote because I have no idea of the risks this upgrade will entail without seeing the results of an independent audit to the smart contract code. And I also think the governance process for this proposal has not been followed in the best way it could. I think the Arbitrum DAO delegates should be asked to vote, even on a temperature check, in as much of a fully fleshed out proposal, as possible. This proposal is not ready to be voted on by delegates, in my opinion, in the sense that if delegates vote against in this temp check, will the work on this upgrade stop? No, it won't. So I don't understand why delegates are being asked to vote on this proposal, at this point. After the code is complete and the audits are done, then it makes sense for delegates to decide on the risk vs. reward of upgrading the Arbitrum One and Nova contracts, with this proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I'm excited about Pectra because I think it will significantly improve Arbitrum UX by reducing the need for multiple signatures to perform a single transaction and by allowing Dapps to enable more advanced functionality directly e.g. paymaster support.
Voting "For", as I have stated in other upgrades like this - while I am not technically proficient enough to do a deep dive review on these types of things... I trust the teams involved with this project and the capable minds of the DAO to dive into those items. At a 10,000 foot glance, the upgrades seem worth implementing and I generally favor any upgrades that continue to keep Arbitrum at the forefront tech-wise.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I will just confirm my "Yes" vote on Tally. Nothing in my opinion has changed since February's temp check
The proposed changes help to bring Pectra relevant modifications to Arbitrum, and also advance account abstraction in the ecosystem. In this sense, I see no reason to oppose this initiative, as it seeks to bring new technical possibilities for users.
EIP-7702 is especially interesting from a defi perspective because it brings new capabilities to the wallet and smart contract ecosystem, specifically batching. I expect these to be applied to Orbit chains in a subsequent update.
The proposed changes help to bring Pectra relevant modifications to Arbitrum, and also advance account abstraction in the ecosystem. In this sense, I see no reason to oppose this initiative, as it seeks to bring new technical possibilities for users.
EIP-7702 is especially interesting from a defi perspective because it brings new capabilities to the wallet and smart contract ecosystem, specifically batching. I expect these to be applied to Orbit chains in a subsequent update.
The proposal has a low risk associated, with any kinks being ironed out during the test period in Devnets and Sepolia. Voting FOR this one.
Voting in favor. I have no technical background but from a logical POV/overall understanding it makes sense that some changes are needed with Pectra + I am trusting the AF on this.
The time lag struck me as odd, which is why I would love to see the question below answered.
Voting in favor. I have no technical background but from a logical POV/overall understanding it makes sense that some changes are needed with Pectra + I am trusting the AF on this.
The time lag struck me as odd, which is why I would love to see the question below answered.
Can something not work correctly in Arbitrum if the Ethereum network is already updated, but Arbitrum is not?
I’m voting in favor of this proposal cause I feel like it only makes sense to support necessary upgrades like these, Arbitrum should keep up with EIPs.
I am voting for this proposal because it will upgrade Arbitrum to support important new Ethereum features, like letting normal accounts run smart contracts and improving security with better cryptography. Arbitrum needs to correspond to his L1. And this proposal will help to implement it. It’s very good that the developers also don’t forget about Arbitrum Nova. I definitely vote for
I'm VOTING YES! This AIP keeps Arbitrum aligned with Ethereum's innovations while strengthening our security and empowering builders. Who would vote against this?
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), 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), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
We support the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it ensures Arbitrum stays in sync with Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrades and key EIPs. This upgrade will improve functionality, security, and developer experience while keeping the ecosystem efficient and future-ready.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We have reviewed EIPs to be included (and not included) in the Callisto upgrade and we find the rationale behind each decision clear and articulated. We are particularly excited about the EIP-7702 change to be included on Arbitrum One and Nova for users on those chains as we believe the change will drastically improve the user experience over time.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We have reviewed EIPs to be included (and not included) in the Callisto upgrade and we find the rationale behind each decision clear and articulated. We are particularly excited about the EIP-7702 change to be included on Arbitrum One and Nova for users on those chains as we believe the change will drastically improve the user experience over time.
We have a couple of questions:
Even reading the detailed document, it wasn't clear what the "technical details" are and why this change better serves the Orbit chain customizability. Could you clarify them?
While the goal of the proposed ArbOS 40 “Callisto” upgrade is to eventually be available for adoption by any Arbitrum Chain, this proposal only concerns the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova chains
While it makes sense that the proposal currently targets only Arbitrum One and Nova, how will these changes be adapted and applied to Orbit chains going forward?
Despite not having a technical background, my initial thought was that we’re leveling up our gear to stay aligned with Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade, and that makes sense. Also, I trust Arb devs, and there are no major concerns in this thread, which is why I’m voting for it.
I have voted in favor of this proposal. Even if I am not deeply technical, Callisto seems to be a crucial update to ensure Arbitrum's compatibility with Ethereum post-Pectra. I don't find anything controversial in this proposal and would like to thanks Arbitrum devs for their work on this.
Voted For: This upgrade is necessary to follow the Ethereum roadmap and also aligns Arbitrum with all EIPs. The Callisto upgrade will bring better functionality and developer experiences. I have full trust in the development team to execute on this upgrade. This is why I support the proposal.
We support ArbOS 40 "Callisto" because it prepares us for Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrade in a straightforward way. It lets EOAs run smart contract code (EIP-7702), boosts our cryptographic operations with enhanced BLS support (EIP-2537), and extends access to historical block data (EIP-2935), along with a minor Stylus caching fix. Honestly, there’s not much more to add, it’s a clean, necessary upgrade.
I will be voting FOR on Snapshot. The full technical implications of this upgrade are far beyond my scope, but with Ethereum's latest updates is necessary and it covers Arbitrum's main chains, so no further comment. Good enough for me.
I voted for, but would like to have my questions answered :wink:
Blockworks Advisory is voting FOR this proposal.
We don't see anything particularly wrong with these changes and believe them to be helpful to the future of the Arbitrum network. All these EIPs are helpful and have been brought to attention either in other discourse domains or directly through Arbitrum forums (like the historical block hash change).
I voted FOR the proposal. I especially like the EIP-7702 changes which will improve user experience, of course after clients (frontends) implement support for this upcoming functionality. Also, the cryptographic precompiles will enable some cool new dApps, I'm looking forward to that too!
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
For this technical proposal, which is important to the broad Arbitrum ecosystem, LobbyFi will make the auction available and will attempt to price the proposal so that no unwanted outcome occurs. LobbyFi will price it at 0.1% of its current VP value (19,921,949 ARB * 0,5 $/ARB * 0.1% ≈ 3.5 ETH).
This is an Easy Yes.
We're voting FOR this proposal on snapshot
Rationale - Pectra is a hard fork on Ethereum promising major upgrades for usability and efficiency and this proposal also improves Stylus.
Supporting it is a no brainer as it brings benefits to Arbitrum, compabiltity with Ethereum, and also signals alignment with the Ethereum Roadmap and values.
Im Voting FOR on Snapshot, I read the update details, And i like how this innovates the transaction types, especially that multiple operations will be able to be combined in the same transaction for EAOs.
Entropy has posted this proposal to Snapshot on behalf of the Arbitrum Foundation. The vote will begin in roughly an hour.
Hello! Thanks for this exciting news!
I have a few questions:
Hello! Thanks for this exciting news!
I have a few questions:
Overall, the Callisto upgrade appears to be a substantial step forward for Arbitrum in keeping up with Ethereum’s roadmap and we are in favour of it.
Our only question @Arbitrum is whether developer tooling gaps and overall readiness have been accounted for to ensure a smooth transition amongst Arbitrum builders.
Good and detailed description of the changes, and useful rationale for the EIPs that will not be applied. I have a question about the update date.
there is a strong likelihood that ArbOS 40 Callisto will be activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova after Ethereum Mainnet upgrades to Pectra
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Our research team reviewed the proposal and didn’t find anything contentious or concerning from a technical implementation standpoint. Given that, and unless something changes before the proposal goes to a temp-check vote, we’ll be voting for it when it’s put on Snapshot.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Our research team reviewed the proposal and didn’t find anything contentious or concerning from a technical implementation standpoint. Given that, and unless something changes before the proposal goes to a temp-check vote, we’ll be voting for it when it’s put on Snapshot.
However, as with other such proposals in the past, we’re committed to verifying the contents of the executable when the proposal moves to an onchain vote.
Without question voting in favor of this proposal. Confident the Callisto release will provide robust support for Ethereum's upcoming Pectra upgrade as outlined in the AIP specifications.
Like @EzR3aL I dont have technical background but from what im reading we're leveling up our gear to stay aligned with Ethereum's Pectra upgrade. Makes sense, being Ethereum aligned is key for Arbitrum's growth and token value.
I trust the Arbitrum devs on this one, they've been solid on previous upgrades. I'm also curious to read more from technical folks.
Glad to see the proposal to support Pectra! When is the snapshot estimated for? Also, could there be any issues in the future with not adopting 7623 and having different calldata costs?
I may not be able to talk tech-wise here a lot, but I am in favour. Arbitrum is showing that its really trying hard and pushing the chain with updates and features, like recently with BoLD. I am curious to see comments from other delegates.
I will be voting FOR on Snapshot. The full technical implications of this upgrade are far beyond my scope, but with Ethereum's latest updates is necessary and it covers Arbitrum's main chains, so no further comment. Good enough for me.
I voted for, but would like to have my questions answered :wink:
Blockworks Advisory is voting FOR this proposal.
We don't see anything particularly wrong with these changes and believe them to be helpful to the future of the Arbitrum network. All these EIPs are helpful and have been brought to attention either in other discourse domains or directly through Arbitrum forums (like the historical block hash change).
I voted FOR the proposal. I especially like the EIP-7702 changes which will improve user experience, of course after clients (frontends) implement support for this upcoming functionality. Also, the cryptographic precompiles will enable some cool new dApps, I'm looking forward to that too!
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
For this technical proposal, which is important to the broad Arbitrum ecosystem, LobbyFi will make the auction available and will attempt to price the proposal so that no unwanted outcome occurs. LobbyFi will price it at 0.1% of its current VP value (19,921,949 ARB * 0,5 $/ARB * 0.1% ≈ 3.5 ETH).
This is an Easy Yes.
We're voting FOR this proposal on snapshot
Rationale - Pectra is a hard fork on Ethereum promising major upgrades for usability and efficiency and this proposal also improves Stylus.
Supporting it is a no brainer as it brings benefits to Arbitrum, compabiltity with Ethereum, and also signals alignment with the Ethereum Roadmap and values.
Im Voting FOR on Snapshot, I read the update details, And i like how this innovates the transaction types, especially that multiple operations will be able to be combined in the same transaction for EAOs.
Entropy has posted this proposal to Snapshot on behalf of the Arbitrum Foundation. The vote will begin in roughly an hour.
Hello! Thanks for this exciting news!
I have a few questions:
Hello! Thanks for this exciting news!
I have a few questions:
Overall, the Callisto upgrade appears to be a substantial step forward for Arbitrum in keeping up with Ethereum’s roadmap and we are in favour of it.
Our only question @Arbitrum is whether developer tooling gaps and overall readiness have been accounted for to ensure a smooth transition amongst Arbitrum builders.
Good and detailed description of the changes, and useful rationale for the EIPs that will not be applied. I have a question about the update date.
there is a strong likelihood that ArbOS 40 Callisto will be activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova after Ethereum Mainnet upgrades to Pectra
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Our research team reviewed the proposal and didn’t find anything contentious or concerning from a technical implementation standpoint. Given that, and unless something changes before the proposal goes to a temp-check vote, we’ll be voting for it when it’s put on Snapshot.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Our research team reviewed the proposal and didn’t find anything contentious or concerning from a technical implementation standpoint. Given that, and unless something changes before the proposal goes to a temp-check vote, we’ll be voting for it when it’s put on Snapshot.
However, as with other such proposals in the past, we’re committed to verifying the contents of the executable when the proposal moves to an onchain vote.
Without question voting in favor of this proposal. Confident the Callisto release will provide robust support for Ethereum's upcoming Pectra upgrade as outlined in the AIP specifications.
Like @EzR3aL I dont have technical background but from what im reading we're leveling up our gear to stay aligned with Ethereum's Pectra upgrade. Makes sense, being Ethereum aligned is key for Arbitrum's growth and token value.
I trust the Arbitrum devs on this one, they've been solid on previous upgrades. I'm also curious to read more from technical folks.
Glad to see the proposal to support Pectra! When is the snapshot estimated for? Also, could there be any issues in the future with not adopting 7623 and having different calldata costs?
I may not be able to talk tech-wise here a lot, but I am in favour. Arbitrum is showing that its really trying hard and pushing the chain with updates and features, like recently with BoLD. I am curious to see comments from other delegates.
Good and detailed description of the changes, and useful rationale for the EIPs that will not be applied. I have a question about the update date.
there is a strong likelihood that ArbOS 40 Callisto will be activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova after Ethereum Mainnet upgrades to Pectra
Can something not work correctly in Arbitrum if the Ethereum network is already updated, but Arbitrum is not?
Good and detailed description of the changes, and useful rationale for the EIPs that will not be applied. I have a question about the update date.
there is a strong likelihood that ArbOS 40 Callisto will be activated on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova after Ethereum Mainnet upgrades to Pectra
Can something not work correctly in Arbitrum if the Ethereum network is already updated, but Arbitrum is not?
