This AIP combines and puts forward three separate proposals for the ArbitrumDAO to consider: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova, Update the Upgrade Executors, and Disable Legacy Tether Bridge. All of the aforementioned proposals have previously passed a Snapshot vote, reaching a quorum of 3% votable $ARB.
The first proposal will remove the Amortized Cost Cap, which is expected to result in higher gas fees for users on Arbitrum Nova. This increase is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network and reduce the financial burden on the Arbitrum Foundation.
The second proposal will replace the Upgrade Executor contracts on Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, and Ethereum mainnet with upgraded versions. The modernized version introduces an additional function that enables the Upgrade Executor to execute an upgrade by directly calling the target contract, rather than indirectly delegate calling an upgrade contract.
The third proposal seeks to disable the legacy USDT bridge for Arbitrum One, given the activation of the new USDT0 bridge in January 2025. This proposal seeks to disable the legacy bridge entirely, rather than continue with the current configuration, which subjects depositors to a week-long delay and risks loss of funds if the depositor is a smart contract.
Arbitrum Nova was initially positioned as a cost-efficient alternative to Arbitrum One, offering 30-50x cheaper transaction fees at launch. However, several developments have significantly reduced Nova’s competitive advantage:
Given the now-minimal cost advantage over Arbitrum One and the rise of Orbit chains, maintaining an amortized cost cap on Nova — which currently prevents batch posters from recovering full L1 costs — is no longer justifiable. Removing the cap will stop the Arbitrum Foundation from providing subsidies and align cost recovery with actual usage.
Accordingly, removing the cap (i.e., setting it to 0 bips) would:
Historical data on Arbitrum Nova batch poster deficits can be seen here. This data highlights the ongoing inefficiencies and justifies the removal of the amortized cost cap.
The Upgrade Executors controlled by the DAO are responsible for carrying out critical upgrades on Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, and Ethereum such as protocol contract upgrades, system parameter changes, and more. Currently, the traditional Upgrade Executor contracts in place only support one function for executing an upgrade: execute(). When called by the owner of the Upgrade Executor, the execute() function will perform a delegate call to an upgrade contract, which facilitates subsequent calls to target contracts and ultimately executes the upgrade. This indirect method of calling and execution can complicate upgrades and require additional development and deployments.
The modern version of the Upgrade Executor introduces a new function, executeCall(), which allows the Upgrade Executor to directly call target contracts and execute upgrades, removing the need for delegate calls to upgrade contracts. While the existing execute() call is still supported, the new executeCall() function enables the Upgrade Executor to implement upgrades in a lighter weight fashion. In the future, upgrades that use this method may not require dedicated action contracts, simplifying the process and saving development energy.
Historically, the existing USDT bridge for Arbitrum One was the primary path for bridging Tether to and from Arbitrum One. The new USDT0 standard introduced a modernized alternative that has become the go-to solution. However, the legacy USDT bridge is still technically enabled, which presents several issues.
First, withdrawals from the legacy bridge to L1 are subject to a seven-day delay, which is meaningfully slower than the new USDT0 bridge which can process bridge transactions in seconds or minutes. Also, once this delay has elapsed, deposits are auto-withdrawn on L1. This inconvenience can be addressed by disabling the legacy bridge and directing users exclusively to the new USDT0 bridge.
Second, user funds could be lost if a smart contract deposits to the legacy bridge on their behalf. The legacy bridge is currently configured to auto-withdraw funds as soon as possible back to the depositor; however, this auto-withdraw configuration can cause problems for smart contracts that deposit on behalf of end users but do not have withdrawal or refund functionality. While it’s possible to recover funds in this scenario, it is certainly sub-optimal for smart contract operators and end users that delegate to them. Disabling the legacy bridge prevents smart contracts from encountering this issue and putting funds at risk. Also, once the legacy bridge is disabled, any transaction submitted to it will simply revert; this applies to third party integrations as well as direct user interactions.
The DAO will execute a call to the ArbOwner contract on Arbitrum Nova to set the amortizedCostCapBips value to 0, thereby allowing batch posters to recover 100% of their L1 posting costs.
Deactivate Legacy Bridge: execute the ‘perform’ function on the DisableGatewayAction contract, disabling legacy USDT on the L1GatewayRouter contract
This AIP combines and puts forward three separate proposals for the ArbitrumDAO to consider: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova, Update the Upgrade Executors, and Disable Legacy Tether Bridge. All of the aforementioned proposals have previously passed a Snapshot vote, reaching a quorum of 3% votable $ARB.
The first proposal will remove the Amortized Cost Cap, which is expected to result in higher gas fees for users on Arbitrum Nova. This increase is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network and reduce the financial burden on the Arbitrum Foundation.
The second proposal will replace the Upgrade Executor contracts on Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, and Ethereum mainnet with upgraded versions. The modernized version introduces an additional function that enables the Upgrade Executor to execute an upgrade by directly calling the target contract, rather than indirectly delegate calling an upgrade contract.
The third proposal seeks to disable the legacy USDT bridge for Arbitrum One, given the activation of the new USDT0 bridge in January 2025. This proposal seeks to disable the legacy bridge entirely, rather than continue with the current configuration, which subjects depositors to a week-long delay and risks loss of funds if the depositor is a smart contract.
Arbitrum Nova was initially positioned as a cost-efficient alternative to Arbitrum One, offering 30-50x cheaper transaction fees at launch. However, several developments have significantly reduced Nova’s competitive advantage:
Given the now-minimal cost advantage over Arbitrum One and the rise of Orbit chains, maintaining an amortized cost cap on Nova — which currently prevents batch posters from recovering full L1 costs — is no longer justifiable. Removing the cap will stop the Arbitrum Foundation from providing subsidies and align cost recovery with actual usage.
Accordingly, removing the cap (i.e., setting it to 0 bips) would:
Historical data on Arbitrum Nova batch poster deficits can be seen here. This data highlights the ongoing inefficiencies and justifies the removal of the amortized cost cap.
The Upgrade Executors controlled by the DAO are responsible for carrying out critical upgrades on Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, and Ethereum such as protocol contract upgrades, system parameter changes, and more. Currently, the traditional Upgrade Executor contracts in place only support one function for executing an upgrade: execute(). When called by the owner of the Upgrade Executor, the execute() function will perform a delegate call to an upgrade contract, which facilitates subsequent calls to target contracts and ultimately executes the upgrade. This indirect method of calling and execution can complicate upgrades and require additional development and deployments.
The modern version of the Upgrade Executor introduces a new function, executeCall(), which allows the Upgrade Executor to directly call target contracts and execute upgrades, removing the need for delegate calls to upgrade contracts. While the existing execute() call is still supported, the new executeCall() function enables the Upgrade Executor to implement upgrades in a lighter weight fashion. In the future, upgrades that use this method may not require dedicated action contracts, simplifying the process and saving development energy.
Historically, the existing USDT bridge for Arbitrum One was the primary path for bridging Tether to and from Arbitrum One. The new USDT0 standard introduced a modernized alternative that has become the go-to solution. However, the legacy USDT bridge is still technically enabled, which presents several issues.
First, withdrawals from the legacy bridge to L1 are subject to a seven-day delay, which is meaningfully slower than the new USDT0 bridge which can process bridge transactions in seconds or minutes. Also, once this delay has elapsed, deposits are auto-withdrawn on L1. This inconvenience can be addressed by disabling the legacy bridge and directing users exclusively to the new USDT0 bridge.
Second, user funds could be lost if a smart contract deposits to the legacy bridge on their behalf. The legacy bridge is currently configured to auto-withdraw funds as soon as possible back to the depositor; however, this auto-withdraw configuration can cause problems for smart contracts that deposit on behalf of end users but do not have withdrawal or refund functionality. While it’s possible to recover funds in this scenario, it is certainly sub-optimal for smart contract operators and end users that delegate to them. Disabling the legacy bridge prevents smart contracts from encountering this issue and putting funds at risk. Also, once the legacy bridge is disabled, any transaction submitted to it will simply revert; this applies to third party integrations as well as direct user interactions.
The DAO will execute a call to the ArbOwner contract on Arbitrum Nova to set the amortizedCostCapBips value to 0, thereby allowing batch posters to recover 100% of their L1 posting costs.
Deactivate Legacy Bridge: execute the ‘perform’ function on the DisableGatewayAction contract, disabling legacy USDT on the L1GatewayRouter contract
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/29
These are all expected items that were intended to be implemented. They were bundled due to their uncontroversial nature and the difficulty of passing Constitutional-level proposals.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/29
These are all expected items that were intended to be implemented. They were bundled due to their uncontroversial nature and the difficulty of passing Constitutional-level proposals.
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-127): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-127
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/blockful-delegate-communication-thread/29901/2?u=blockful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/46
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/36?u=euphoria
these are all things that I’ve voted For before, on their respective offchain votes. I do feel like these proposals should not be bundled together and that delegates should be provided a way to verify that the payload of the onchain proposals actually match what the proposal says.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/22?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/curia-delegate-communication-thread/23600/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/23?u=0xalex
For now, i am voting for and posting my full rationale while the proposal will be on Tally
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/35?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/34?u=bob-rossi
it doesn't make sense to continue to subsidize or even maintain Arbitrum Nova. We should focus only on Arbitrum One, aka, Arbitrum. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/33?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/19?u=tekr0x.eth
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/25?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/32?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/31
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-114): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-114
For: Removing the cost cap enhances efficiency and reduces the need for subsidies, aligning with values of Driving Adoption and Efficiency in DeFi.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/14?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/30?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/27?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/24
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/23?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/16?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/21?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/20?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/18
As an advocate for full onchain games and autonomous worlds, I see this as a decision that could put NOVA on the map in this niche. Right now, many builders in this space are opting to launch their own L2s/L3s, leaving NOVA a bit behind. I vote yes.
It doesn’t make sense to continue the subsidy. There is minimal on-chain activity on Nova, so it would be prudent to prune Arbitrum’s support.
I'm supporting this proposal because I genuinely believe it’s important to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term subsidies. Given the significant shift in the Layer 2 landscape and the minimal difference now between Nova and other solutions, continuing to subsidize transaction fees doesn't make economic sense anymore. It feels necessary and responsible to adjust our approach based on current realities rather than hold onto outdated strategies.
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-127): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-127
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/blockful-delegate-communication-thread/29901/2?u=blockful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/46
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/36?u=euphoria
these are all things that I’ve voted For before, on their respective offchain votes. I do feel like these proposals should not be bundled together and that delegates should be provided a way to verify that the payload of the onchain proposals actually match what the proposal says.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-disable-legacy-tether-bridge/29503/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/22?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/curia-delegate-communication-thread/23600/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/23?u=0xalex
For now, i am voting for and posting my full rationale while the proposal will be on Tally
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/35?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/34?u=bob-rossi
it doesn't make sense to continue to subsidize or even maintain Arbitrum Nova. We should focus only on Arbitrum One, aka, Arbitrum. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/33?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/19?u=tekr0x.eth
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/25?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/32?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/31
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-114): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-114
For: Removing the cost cap enhances efficiency and reduces the need for subsidies, aligning with values of Driving Adoption and Efficiency in DeFi.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/14?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/30?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/27?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/24
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/23?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/16?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/21?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/20?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-remove-cost-cap-on-arbitrum-nova/29332/18
As an advocate for full onchain games and autonomous worlds, I see this as a decision that could put NOVA on the map in this niche. Right now, many builders in this space are opting to launch their own L2s/L3s, leaving NOVA a bit behind. I vote yes.
It doesn’t make sense to continue the subsidy. There is minimal on-chain activity on Nova, so it would be prudent to prune Arbitrum’s support.
I'm supporting this proposal because I genuinely believe it’s important to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term subsidies. Given the significant shift in the Layer 2 landscape and the minimal difference now between Nova and other solutions, continuing to subsidize transaction fees doesn't make economic sense anymore. It feels necessary and responsible to adjust our approach based on current realities rather than hold onto outdated strategies.
We support the removal of the amortized cost cap because, under the current structure, batch posters are unable to recover the full cost of their L1 submissions, with the AF covering the difference. When examining the data, particularly TVL, it seems reasonable to lift this cap and relieve the AF of this financial burden. However, existing protocols on Nova may be negatively impacted in the long term due to increased gas fees. To mitigate this risk, a support program based on specific eligibility criteria could be introduced, allowing affected protocols to apply for assistance. This would ensure that the Foundation’s unsustainable subsidy is phased out while also protecting Nova-based projects from sudden cost increases. Overall, considering Nova’s current state and broader ecosystem trends, this proposal appears to be a strategically and financially sound decision.
ITU Governance, @harryvors
We support the removal of the amortized cost cap because, under the current structure, batch posters are unable to recover the full cost of their L1 submissions, with the AF covering the difference. When examining the data, particularly TVL, it seems reasonable to lift this cap and relieve the AF of this financial burden. However, existing protocols on Nova may be negatively impacted in the long term due to increased gas fees. To mitigate this risk, a support program based on specific eligibility criteria could be introduced, allowing affected protocols to apply for assistance. This would ensure that the Foundation’s unsustainable subsidy is phased out while also protecting Nova-based projects from sudden cost increases. Overall, considering Nova’s current state and broader ecosystem trends, this proposal appears to be a strategically and financially sound decision.
ITU Governance, @harryvors
Thanks for the comment. Regarding Nova’s strategy, we are actively working through those considerations and want to provide builders with clear guidance. We will keep the community updated as these discussions progress.
Thanks for your comment. The roadmap for Nova is still being decided. We don’t have any concrete answers to your question yet, besides what this proposal offers.
Thanks for the comment. Regarding Nova’s strategy, we are actively working through those considerations and want to provide builders with clear guidance. We will keep the community updated as these discussions progress.
Thanks for your comment. The roadmap for Nova is still being decided. We don’t have any concrete answers to your question yet, besides what this proposal offers.
Thanks for the comment, @CastleCapital. You’re right that this proposal represents an operational adjustment to help reduce the financial burden on the AF while we reassess Nova’s position in the ecosystem.
Regarding your question about the longer-term strategy for Nova, its roadmap is still being decided.
Regarding your question about phased alternatives, we didn’t have this in mind
Thanks for the comment, @CastleCapital. You’re right that this proposal represents an operational adjustment to help reduce the financial burden on the AF while we reassess Nova’s position in the ecosystem.
Regarding your question about the longer-term strategy for Nova, its roadmap is still being decided.
Regarding your question about phased alternatives, we didn’t have this in mind
I will be voting for this proposal because Removing Nova’s cost cap is a logical next step. With EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption shifting demand, this proposal ends an outdated subsidy and realigns Nova’s fees with its true role in the ecosystem. Teams seeking ultra-low costs now have better options via Orbit, making continued treasury spend here inefficient. We support this shift, as long as clear communication and smooth transitions are prioritized for affected teams.
I will be voting for this proposal because Removing Nova’s cost cap is a logical next step. With EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption shifting demand, this proposal ends an outdated subsidy and realigns Nova’s fees with its true role in the ecosystem. Teams seeking ultra-low costs now have better options via Orbit, making continued treasury spend here inefficient. We support this shift, as long as clear communication and smooth transitions are prioritized for affected teams.
After further consideration, we've realized that our original requirement — that a proposal must receive at least 95% FOR votes on Snapshot and reach an informal quorum of 100M votes in order to be batched with other maintenance-related proposals for a joint Tally vote — is unnecessarily stringent.
To streamline the process while still ensuring sufficient support, we're updating the requirement - that if a proposal reaches a quorum of at least 3% of votable $ARB on Snapshot, it may be eligible to be combined with other maintenance-related proposals in a joint Tally vote.
Thanks for the thoughtful & constructive feedback. We will make sure to communicate the intended changes to affected projects if the proposal passes. In response to your legal & contractual clarity points:
Hi Paulo, this constitutional proposal would still need to meet the constitutional quorum in order to pass on Tally. At this stage, we are suggesting an informal quorum of 100M AND a high approval threshold of 95% to determine whether it would make sense to group multiple constitutional temperature checks with high approval ratings, into one on-chain proposal.
In the past, only Snapshot proposals that didn't need to go to Tally (e.g. modifications to existing initiatives) have used the non-constitutional quorum of 3% as good practice. Standard temperature checks don’t have any formal quorum requirement.
After further consideration, we've realized that our original requirement — that a proposal must receive at least 95% FOR votes on Snapshot and reach an informal quorum of 100M votes in order to be batched with other maintenance-related proposals for a joint Tally vote — is unnecessarily stringent.
To streamline the process while still ensuring sufficient support, we're updating the requirement - that if a proposal reaches a quorum of at least 3% of votable $ARB on Snapshot, it may be eligible to be combined with other maintenance-related proposals in a joint Tally vote.
Thanks for the thoughtful & constructive feedback. We will make sure to communicate the intended changes to affected projects if the proposal passes. In response to your legal & contractual clarity points:
Hi Paulo, this constitutional proposal would still need to meet the constitutional quorum in order to pass on Tally. At this stage, we are suggesting an informal quorum of 100M AND a high approval threshold of 95% to determine whether it would make sense to group multiple constitutional temperature checks with high approval ratings, into one on-chain proposal.
In the past, only Snapshot proposals that didn't need to go to Tally (e.g. modifications to existing initiatives) have used the non-constitutional quorum of 3% as good practice. Standard temperature checks don’t have any formal quorum requirement.
Thanks for a well-structured proposal.
From a governance perspective, this change meets the criteria of a constitutional AIP and follows the proper process. That said, I’d like to flag a few important considerations before it proceeds to Snapshot and Tally:
Thanks for a well-structured proposal.
From a governance perspective, this change meets the criteria of a constitutional AIP and follows the proper process. That said, I’d like to flag a few important considerations before it proceeds to Snapshot and Tally:
This is a timely and necessary update given EIP-4844 and Orbit’s evolution. I support the change, provided the rollout is done with accountability and transparency.
Thanks for a well-structured proposal.
From a governance perspective, this change meets the criteria of a constitutional AIP and follows the proper process. That said, I’d like to flag a few important considerations before it proceeds to Snapshot and Tally:
Thanks for a well-structured proposal.
From a governance perspective, this change meets the criteria of a constitutional AIP and follows the proper process. That said, I’d like to flag a few important considerations before it proceeds to Snapshot and Tally:
This is a timely and necessary update given EIP-4844 and Orbit’s evolution. I support the change, provided the rollout is done with accountability and transparency.
Thank you for the proposal.
Even though it was difficult to deeply understand it, it was relatively easy to decide on it. My vote on Tally will be aligned with my vote on Snapshot and will be FOR, like, almost, 100% of the other votes.
My rationale is that after the EIP-4844, Nova became much less cost-effective. @krst said, and I do agree that :
Thank you for the proposal.
Even though it was difficult to deeply understand it, it was relatively easy to decide on it. My vote on Tally will be aligned with my vote on Snapshot and will be FOR, like, almost, 100% of the other votes.
My rationale is that after the EIP-4844, Nova became much less cost-effective. @krst said, and I do agree that :
With the proposal passing, it seems as if we are ‘abandoning’ Nova. I also saw a relative comment from @maxlomu. But are we abandoning it, or is it already abandoned? By visiting https://nova.arbiscan.io/charts anyone can see that in the last 24 hours, there are no block rewards, contracts verified, or total gas used. Also, I have the chart regarding the tx/day following:
Unfortunately, what the charts show is that the Nova blockchain is mostly even-driven anymore. It would be nice to find ways to reuse this tool for the common good. It is up to us to explore if and how, but for now, it seems like this proposal is the only way forward.
gm, voted FOR as expressed above.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR. We've posted full rationale here.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR. Below the rationale:
I have voted in favour of the proposal. Upon reading the explanation for killing the subsidy, I think it makes sense, especially given that the competitive adv of x20 cheaper txs is now ~x2. It doesn’t make much sense anymore to preserve these artificial discounts, users can either go to Orbit chains where teams can tweak gas rules or simply stay on Arbitrum One where the margins are already small as EIP-4844 did its job. Voted FOR
can we please get some independent verification that the payload on the onchain proposal actually does what it says it does? @offchainlabs @Frisson @krst @GFXlabs and so on?
ideally, before more people vote on it without verifying it.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
This is a no-brainer, we find no reasons to oppose the cost cap removal on Arbitrum Nova.
I've decided to vote in favor of this proposal. It seems like a pretty straightforward choice, given that Arbitrum Nova no longer delivers the expected advantages and now represents an ongoing cost for the ecosystem. Removing the cost cap feels like a necessary step.
Voting to remove the cost cap
Nova served its purpose, but it's no longer relevant to the scaling landscape. No need to subsized a dead project, and if by chance it starts to come back then it is fair to let it do so under 'its own power' so of speak.
voting For on the current offchain vote because it doesn't make sense to continue to subsidize or even maintain Arbitrum Nova. We should focus only on Arbitrum One, aka, Arbitrum.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting in favor to remove the cost cap. Below the rationale:
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 voting FOR the 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 voting FOR the proposal.
It does not make sense to continue subsidizing the use of Nova when its competitive advantage over Arbitrum One has diminished to the point of irrelevance due to blobs, and while its TVS and activity have been constantly decreasing.
If anything, the removal of the cap could either make Nova sustainable by allowing batch posters to recoup their costs or ultimately consolidate users to Arbitrum One and Orbit chains due to higher transaction fees.
I’m voting yes
Ending the subsidy is the first logical step, but we should consider sunsetting Nova all together.
Nova had its role, but the context shifted and holding on just to hold on doesn’t help anyone.
Subsidies should be earned, not assumed. If there’s real demand, it’ll show up without needing to prop it up. But I wonder if there is real demand?
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal ends an outdated subsidy by letting Nova fees reflect real L1 costs, which is now only about 2x lower than Arbitrum One. We agree that expending more treasury to chase marginal savings no longer drives adoption because teams that need ultra-cheap capacity are moving to Orbit chains. Redirecting those funds to higher-impact initiatives will improve overall capital efficiency while users still enjoy low absolute gas fees.
¹ Hex Dashboard (“Cumulative Net” curve shows a steeper drop after EIP-4844 in March 2024)
Ultimately these subsidies were a growth campaign likely created to incentivize teams to come to Arbitrum Nova and spur more on-chain transactions (I assume there was a more specific goal).
I’d love to see how this campaign actually performed and what learnings we can apply to potential subsidies on Orbit. I think there’s a lesson here: treat Nova incentives like any growth campaign—set clear spend → acquire → retain metrics and iterate fast.
Key points:
Questions for growth/ROI:
Thank you for the proposal.
Even though it was difficult to deeply understand it, it was relatively easy to decide on it. My vote on Tally will be aligned with my vote on Snapshot and will be FOR, like, almost, 100% of the other votes.
My rationale is that after the EIP-4844, Nova became much less cost-effective. @krst said, and I do agree that :
Thank you for the proposal.
Even though it was difficult to deeply understand it, it was relatively easy to decide on it. My vote on Tally will be aligned with my vote on Snapshot and will be FOR, like, almost, 100% of the other votes.
My rationale is that after the EIP-4844, Nova became much less cost-effective. @krst said, and I do agree that :
With the proposal passing, it seems as if we are ‘abandoning’ Nova. I also saw a relative comment from @maxlomu. But are we abandoning it, or is it already abandoned? By visiting https://nova.arbiscan.io/charts anyone can see that in the last 24 hours, there are no block rewards, contracts verified, or total gas used. Also, I have the chart regarding the tx/day following:
Unfortunately, what the charts show is that the Nova blockchain is mostly even-driven anymore. It would be nice to find ways to reuse this tool for the common good. It is up to us to explore if and how, but for now, it seems like this proposal is the only way forward.
gm, voted FOR as expressed above.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR. We've posted full rationale here.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR. Below the rationale:
I have voted in favour of the proposal. Upon reading the explanation for killing the subsidy, I think it makes sense, especially given that the competitive adv of x20 cheaper txs is now ~x2. It doesn’t make much sense anymore to preserve these artificial discounts, users can either go to Orbit chains where teams can tweak gas rules or simply stay on Arbitrum One where the margins are already small as EIP-4844 did its job. Voted FOR
can we please get some independent verification that the payload on the onchain proposal actually does what it says it does? @offchainlabs @Frisson @krst @GFXlabs and so on?
ideally, before more people vote on it without verifying it.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote FOR on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
This is a no-brainer, we find no reasons to oppose the cost cap removal on Arbitrum Nova.
I've decided to vote in favor of this proposal. It seems like a pretty straightforward choice, given that Arbitrum Nova no longer delivers the expected advantages and now represents an ongoing cost for the ecosystem. Removing the cost cap feels like a necessary step.
Voting to remove the cost cap
Nova served its purpose, but it's no longer relevant to the scaling landscape. No need to subsized a dead project, and if by chance it starts to come back then it is fair to let it do so under 'its own power' so of speak.
voting For on the current offchain vote because it doesn't make sense to continue to subsidize or even maintain Arbitrum Nova. We should focus only on Arbitrum One, aka, Arbitrum.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting in favor to remove the cost cap. Below the rationale:
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 voting FOR the 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 voting FOR the proposal.
It does not make sense to continue subsidizing the use of Nova when its competitive advantage over Arbitrum One has diminished to the point of irrelevance due to blobs, and while its TVS and activity have been constantly decreasing.
If anything, the removal of the cap could either make Nova sustainable by allowing batch posters to recoup their costs or ultimately consolidate users to Arbitrum One and Orbit chains due to higher transaction fees.
I’m voting yes
Ending the subsidy is the first logical step, but we should consider sunsetting Nova all together.
Nova had its role, but the context shifted and holding on just to hold on doesn’t help anyone.
Subsidies should be earned, not assumed. If there’s real demand, it’ll show up without needing to prop it up. But I wonder if there is real demand?
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal ends an outdated subsidy by letting Nova fees reflect real L1 costs, which is now only about 2x lower than Arbitrum One. We agree that expending more treasury to chase marginal savings no longer drives adoption because teams that need ultra-cheap capacity are moving to Orbit chains. Redirecting those funds to higher-impact initiatives will improve overall capital efficiency while users still enjoy low absolute gas fees.
¹ Hex Dashboard (“Cumulative Net” curve shows a steeper drop after EIP-4844 in March 2024)
Ultimately these subsidies were a growth campaign likely created to incentivize teams to come to Arbitrum Nova and spur more on-chain transactions (I assume there was a more specific goal).
I’d love to see how this campaign actually performed and what learnings we can apply to potential subsidies on Orbit. I think there’s a lesson here: treat Nova incentives like any growth campaign—set clear spend → acquire → retain metrics and iterate fast.
Key points:
Questions for growth/ROI:
I’m voting yes
Ending the subsidy is the first logical step, but we should consider sunsetting Nova all together.
Nova had its role, but the context shifted and holding on just to hold on doesn’t help anyone.
Subsidies should be earned, not assumed. If there’s real demand, it’ll show up without needing to prop it up. But I wonder if there is real demand?
I mean, $1400 in 24hr DEX volume? FOR THE WHOLE CHAIN?! The GIV token does better than that and its about charity.
We should probably sunset Nova like Polygon is doing with zkEVM, onchain fees are only the most obvious costs, there are countless other costs too, including opportunity costs of people that spend time maintianing a failed chain.
Makes sense to move on.
I will be voting FOR on Snapshot as this proposal really seems like a no brainer due to Nova's relatively low usage, TVL and popularity. It makes little sense to subsidize this, and if anything it's a shame it hadn't been passed before.
I voted FOR on this proposal. As the chain does not have much competitive advantage anymore, it does not make sense to keep incentivising it.
Given the now-minimal cost advantage over Arbitrum One and the rise of Orbit chains, maintaining an amortized cost cap on Nova — which currently prevents batch posters from recovering full L1 costs — is no longer justifiable. Removing the cap will stop the Arbitrum Foundation from subsidizing these subsidies and align cost recovery with actual usage.
I voted FOR on this proposal. As the chain does not have much competitive advantage anymore, it does not make sense to keep incentivising it.
Given the now-minimal cost advantage over Arbitrum One and the rise of Orbit chains, maintaining an amortized cost cap on Nova — which currently prevents batch posters from recovering full L1 costs — is no longer justifiable. Removing the cap will stop the Arbitrum Foundation from subsidizing these subsidies and align cost recovery with actual usage.
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.
Removing the amortized cost cap on Nova makes sense given EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption. It aligns Nova’s costs with its current role and avoids unnecessary subsidies.
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.
Removing the amortized cost cap on Nova makes sense given EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption. It aligns Nova’s costs with its current role and avoids unnecessary subsidies.
As mentioned earlier, we encourage clear communication with affected projects and batch posters, with timelines and dedicated channels to ensure a smooth transition and clarity on migration options to Arbitrum One or Orbit if needed.
We will support the removal of the Amortized Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova, as it eliminates inefficient subsidies, aligns cost recovery with actual network usage, and reflects Nova’s reduced strategic role in the evolving Layer 2 ecosystem. With the cost gap to Arbitrum One significantly narrowed by EIP-4844 and the growing adoption of Orbit chains, maintaining the cap is no longer justified. This change promotes sustainability, transparency, and better resource allocation across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I have voted For this proposal. Layer 2 solutions are highly competitive, and I don’t see the point in continuing to spend resources to incentivize Nova. Resources should be focused as much as possible to remain competitive.
Also as many delegates suggest, I would also appreciate more clarity about where sit Nova in Arbitrum Strategy and if it should be deprecated.
I voted FOR this proposal
As I wrote earlier, it's cutting unnecessary and significant expenses for Arbitrum - there’s no longer a need to subsidize Nova, as recent upgrades have already brought substantial fee reductions
I'm voting yes because this change makes sense. Nova is not cheap like before, and it don’t need the cost limit anymore. Removing the cap helps stop wasting money and makes things more fair for the people running the chain
While I support removing the cap, I’m worried it won’t fix the real problems Nova is facing - not the technical ones, but the challenges with getting users and retention. It’s totally possible that (by the end of the year) we’ll be talking about shutting down Nova, just like Polygon recently announced for their zkEVM, which is set to shut down next year. I wonder what AFs thoughts are on that?
In support
I belive it's time to deprecate Nova:
So stopping incentives for it seems like a good first step. As a side note, it would be great if there was more transparency on the foundation's usage of funds. We could have likely spotted this sooner
It doesn't make sense to continue the subsidy. There is minimal on-chain activity on Nova, so it would be prudent to prune Arbitrum's support.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Removing the Amortized Cost Cap on Nova makes sense from a financial and strategic perspective.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Removing the Amortized Cost Cap on Nova makes sense from a financial and strategic perspective.
It seems like builders may just focus on launching Orbit AnyTrust chains if they desire low txn cost for high activity applications. Dev optionality is a lot better now than it was a couple of years ago, and Nova served its purpose more prominently as a precursor to Orbit. If I recall correctly, Reddit conducted a points reward campaign using Nova in 2023. That would in part align with the higher levels of Nova DEX activity in the graph below. If the Reddit program or alike initiatives were still active, I'd recommend coordinating with the right stakeholders to ensure that Nova-based programs are not adversely affected—but it seems most programs have already subsided.
The lackluster trailing 12-month activity is strong reason to reduce AF-based subsidies. Builders have moved. Users have moved. And the revenue-to-cost ratio keeps worsening:
One pending question is—how many other resources are being used to run and facilitate Nova? If there are places where AF perhaps could reduce resource allocation to Nova, it may be worth considering.
gm, directionally supportive at this stage and voting FOR.
A few questions remain:
gm, directionally supportive at this stage and voting FOR.
A few questions remain:
1- What's the strategy with Nova? Are we deprecating it? Would be useful to know so we don't recommend builders to build there. 2- What's the plan with the existing projects? Are they ok with the change, are they planning to move to Arbitrum as well, are they dead...?
Nova is basically irrelevant with its current TVL and the competition in the L2 landscape
TVL is not the only valuable metric, Nova could have been a great gaming chain for example, and it was used by Proof of Play as an initial home.
Thank you for this proposal @Arbitrum. It makes sense for the Foundation to remove the amortized cost cap if continuing to subsidize Nova no longer delivers meaningful benefits. We’re aligned on that point.
That said, since one of Nova’s original selling points was its ultra-low fees, it feels appropriate to open a broader conversation about Nova’s trajectory. What is the roadmap for Nova now that its cost advantage over Arbitrum One has narrowed? It’s been noted that Nova carries a "lower strategic priority within the Arbitrum ecosystem". Is Nova’s fate already set in stone, or are there plans to reinvigorate its value proposition over the longer term?
We agree with the rationale behind removing the Amortized Cost Cap considering that Nova’s original fee advantage has largely evaporated and continuing to subsidize L1 costs at the Foundation’s expense doesn’t seem sustainable or justifiable.
That said, a few things could use more clarity:
We agree with the rationale behind removing the Amortized Cost Cap considering that Nova’s original fee advantage has largely evaporated and continuing to subsidize L1 costs at the Foundation’s expense doesn’t seem sustainable or justifiable.
That said, a few things could use more clarity:
Overall, this feels like a pragmatic move that matches where the network is today, but adding more detail around user impact and future direction would help the DAO make a more informed decision.
Appreciate the work.
The Arbitrum DAO already has a lot costs and Nova is basically irrelevant with its current TVL and the competition in the L2 landscape. As outlined by the Foundation, EIP4844 changed this even more making Nova only a burden that is not bringing any new net user or developer.
I would even go one step further and try to slow down everything related to Nova step by step. Making sure that over time it will "die" and funds to upkeep it can be used for other important upgrades to Arbitrum and its ecosystem. This should be a well organized off boarding plan to make sure user have enough time to bridge their assets and developer can seamlessly move to Arbitrum One or their own Orbit chain.
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.
This proposition makes concrete sense for the Foundation to ensure it’s economical viability. As duely noted, we’ve noticed traction for Nova has slowly dwindled to historic lows (both through metrics of address usage and transactions), and lifting this fee cap will reduce deficits for the Foundation’s efforts. We also recognise the Foundation’s efforts in effectively communicating to the intended projects and its adherence to existing legal agreements in relation to Nova.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support the proposal to remove the amortized cost cap on Nova. Given recent ecosystem developments, particularly Ethereum’s EIP-4844 and growing adoption of Orbit chains, it makes sense to align Nova’s operational costs with its current market position.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support the proposal to remove the amortized cost cap on Nova. Given recent ecosystem developments, particularly Ethereum’s EIP-4844 and growing adoption of Orbit chains, it makes sense to align Nova’s operational costs with its current market position.
We particularly align with the points raised by @GozmanGonzalez regarding the necessity of clear stakeholder communication and detailed post-implementation monitoring. We believe it would be beneficial to outline precisely how communication will be structured to reach potentially affected Nova-based projects and batch posters. This could include specific timelines and dedicated channels, ensuring transparency and minimizing confusion during the transition. This will effectively manage the transition, reduce disruption, and offer clarity on potential migration paths to Arbitrum One or Orbit chains.
this is not how we usually do things in here, right?
I would almost consider that con, a pro. It seems like there is no reason not to reduce the incentive of Nova and consolidate usership on One.
First, I would like to outline a few pros and cons:
Pros:
Cons:
I’m voting yes
Ending the subsidy is the first logical step, but we should consider sunsetting Nova all together.
Nova had its role, but the context shifted and holding on just to hold on doesn’t help anyone.
Subsidies should be earned, not assumed. If there’s real demand, it’ll show up without needing to prop it up. But I wonder if there is real demand?
I mean, $1400 in 24hr DEX volume? FOR THE WHOLE CHAIN?! The GIV token does better than that and its about charity.
We should probably sunset Nova like Polygon is doing with zkEVM, onchain fees are only the most obvious costs, there are countless other costs too, including opportunity costs of people that spend time maintianing a failed chain.
Makes sense to move on.
I will be voting FOR on Snapshot as this proposal really seems like a no brainer due to Nova's relatively low usage, TVL and popularity. It makes little sense to subsidize this, and if anything it's a shame it hadn't been passed before.
I voted FOR on this proposal. As the chain does not have much competitive advantage anymore, it does not make sense to keep incentivising it.
Given the now-minimal cost advantage over Arbitrum One and the rise of Orbit chains, maintaining an amortized cost cap on Nova — which currently prevents batch posters from recovering full L1 costs — is no longer justifiable. Removing the cap will stop the Arbitrum Foundation from subsidizing these subsidies and align cost recovery with actual usage.
I voted FOR on this proposal. As the chain does not have much competitive advantage anymore, it does not make sense to keep incentivising it.
Given the now-minimal cost advantage over Arbitrum One and the rise of Orbit chains, maintaining an amortized cost cap on Nova — which currently prevents batch posters from recovering full L1 costs — is no longer justifiable. Removing the cap will stop the Arbitrum Foundation from subsidizing these subsidies and align cost recovery with actual usage.
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.
Removing the amortized cost cap on Nova makes sense given EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption. It aligns Nova’s costs with its current role and avoids unnecessary subsidies.
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.
Removing the amortized cost cap on Nova makes sense given EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption. It aligns Nova’s costs with its current role and avoids unnecessary subsidies.
As mentioned earlier, we encourage clear communication with affected projects and batch posters, with timelines and dedicated channels to ensure a smooth transition and clarity on migration options to Arbitrum One or Orbit if needed.
We will support the removal of the Amortized Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova, as it eliminates inefficient subsidies, aligns cost recovery with actual network usage, and reflects Nova’s reduced strategic role in the evolving Layer 2 ecosystem. With the cost gap to Arbitrum One significantly narrowed by EIP-4844 and the growing adoption of Orbit chains, maintaining the cap is no longer justified. This change promotes sustainability, transparency, and better resource allocation across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I have voted For this proposal. Layer 2 solutions are highly competitive, and I don’t see the point in continuing to spend resources to incentivize Nova. Resources should be focused as much as possible to remain competitive.
Also as many delegates suggest, I would also appreciate more clarity about where sit Nova in Arbitrum Strategy and if it should be deprecated.
I voted FOR this proposal
As I wrote earlier, it's cutting unnecessary and significant expenses for Arbitrum - there’s no longer a need to subsidize Nova, as recent upgrades have already brought substantial fee reductions
I'm voting yes because this change makes sense. Nova is not cheap like before, and it don’t need the cost limit anymore. Removing the cap helps stop wasting money and makes things more fair for the people running the chain
While I support removing the cap, I’m worried it won’t fix the real problems Nova is facing - not the technical ones, but the challenges with getting users and retention. It’s totally possible that (by the end of the year) we’ll be talking about shutting down Nova, just like Polygon recently announced for their zkEVM, which is set to shut down next year. I wonder what AFs thoughts are on that?
In support
I belive it's time to deprecate Nova:
So stopping incentives for it seems like a good first step. As a side note, it would be great if there was more transparency on the foundation's usage of funds. We could have likely spotted this sooner
It doesn't make sense to continue the subsidy. There is minimal on-chain activity on Nova, so it would be prudent to prune Arbitrum's support.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Removing the Amortized Cost Cap on Nova makes sense from a financial and strategic perspective.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Removing the Amortized Cost Cap on Nova makes sense from a financial and strategic perspective.
It seems like builders may just focus on launching Orbit AnyTrust chains if they desire low txn cost for high activity applications. Dev optionality is a lot better now than it was a couple of years ago, and Nova served its purpose more prominently as a precursor to Orbit. If I recall correctly, Reddit conducted a points reward campaign using Nova in 2023. That would in part align with the higher levels of Nova DEX activity in the graph below. If the Reddit program or alike initiatives were still active, I'd recommend coordinating with the right stakeholders to ensure that Nova-based programs are not adversely affected—but it seems most programs have already subsided.
The lackluster trailing 12-month activity is strong reason to reduce AF-based subsidies. Builders have moved. Users have moved. And the revenue-to-cost ratio keeps worsening:
One pending question is—how many other resources are being used to run and facilitate Nova? If there are places where AF perhaps could reduce resource allocation to Nova, it may be worth considering.
gm, directionally supportive at this stage and voting FOR.
A few questions remain:
gm, directionally supportive at this stage and voting FOR.
A few questions remain:
1- What's the strategy with Nova? Are we deprecating it? Would be useful to know so we don't recommend builders to build there. 2- What's the plan with the existing projects? Are they ok with the change, are they planning to move to Arbitrum as well, are they dead...?
Nova is basically irrelevant with its current TVL and the competition in the L2 landscape
TVL is not the only valuable metric, Nova could have been a great gaming chain for example, and it was used by Proof of Play as an initial home.
Thank you for this proposal @Arbitrum. It makes sense for the Foundation to remove the amortized cost cap if continuing to subsidize Nova no longer delivers meaningful benefits. We’re aligned on that point.
That said, since one of Nova’s original selling points was its ultra-low fees, it feels appropriate to open a broader conversation about Nova’s trajectory. What is the roadmap for Nova now that its cost advantage over Arbitrum One has narrowed? It’s been noted that Nova carries a "lower strategic priority within the Arbitrum ecosystem". Is Nova’s fate already set in stone, or are there plans to reinvigorate its value proposition over the longer term?
We agree with the rationale behind removing the Amortized Cost Cap considering that Nova’s original fee advantage has largely evaporated and continuing to subsidize L1 costs at the Foundation’s expense doesn’t seem sustainable or justifiable.
That said, a few things could use more clarity:
We agree with the rationale behind removing the Amortized Cost Cap considering that Nova’s original fee advantage has largely evaporated and continuing to subsidize L1 costs at the Foundation’s expense doesn’t seem sustainable or justifiable.
That said, a few things could use more clarity:
Overall, this feels like a pragmatic move that matches where the network is today, but adding more detail around user impact and future direction would help the DAO make a more informed decision.
Appreciate the work.
The Arbitrum DAO already has a lot costs and Nova is basically irrelevant with its current TVL and the competition in the L2 landscape. As outlined by the Foundation, EIP4844 changed this even more making Nova only a burden that is not bringing any new net user or developer.
I would even go one step further and try to slow down everything related to Nova step by step. Making sure that over time it will "die" and funds to upkeep it can be used for other important upgrades to Arbitrum and its ecosystem. This should be a well organized off boarding plan to make sure user have enough time to bridge their assets and developer can seamlessly move to Arbitrum One or their own Orbit chain.
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.
This proposition makes concrete sense for the Foundation to ensure it’s economical viability. As duely noted, we’ve noticed traction for Nova has slowly dwindled to historic lows (both through metrics of address usage and transactions), and lifting this fee cap will reduce deficits for the Foundation’s efforts. We also recognise the Foundation’s efforts in effectively communicating to the intended projects and its adherence to existing legal agreements in relation to Nova.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support the proposal to remove the amortized cost cap on Nova. Given recent ecosystem developments, particularly Ethereum’s EIP-4844 and growing adoption of Orbit chains, it makes sense to align Nova’s operational costs with its current market position.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We support the proposal to remove the amortized cost cap on Nova. Given recent ecosystem developments, particularly Ethereum’s EIP-4844 and growing adoption of Orbit chains, it makes sense to align Nova’s operational costs with its current market position.
We particularly align with the points raised by @GozmanGonzalez regarding the necessity of clear stakeholder communication and detailed post-implementation monitoring. We believe it would be beneficial to outline precisely how communication will be structured to reach potentially affected Nova-based projects and batch posters. This could include specific timelines and dedicated channels, ensuring transparency and minimizing confusion during the transition. This will effectively manage the transition, reduce disruption, and offer clarity on potential migration paths to Arbitrum One or Orbit chains.
this is not how we usually do things in here, right?
I would almost consider that con, a pro. It seems like there is no reason not to reduce the incentive of Nova and consolidate usership on One.
First, I would like to outline a few pros and cons:
Pros:
Cons:
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.
This proposition makes concrete sense for the Foundation to ensure it’s economical viability. As duely noted, we’ve noticed traction for Nova has slowly dwindled to historic lows (both through metrics of address usage and transactions), and lifting this fee cap will reduce deficits for the Foundation’s efforts. We also recognise the Foundation’s efforts in effectively communicating to the intended projects and its adherence to existing legal agreements in relation to Nova.
We envision there to be a reduction of interest, making more efforts in establishing Orbit Chains, and Arbitrum One enticing can be beneficial for teams.
Overall we are satisfied with this proposition, and hope the extent of this technical administration leads to future economical initiatives for the Foundation to build atop of.
this is not how we usually do things in here, right?
I think it's unfair to break precedent to how we've been considering that an important snapshot vote is passed.
We should maintain the 3% quorum requirement for this offchain vote as well. Otherwise we are undermining the legitimacy of this decision when compared to all others.
First, I would like to outline a few pros and cons:
Pros:
Cons:
Considering Nova’s substantial operational costs, it seems clear that ending the subsidies is the right decision
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.
This proposition makes concrete sense for the Foundation to ensure it’s economical viability. As duely noted, we’ve noticed traction for Nova has slowly dwindled to historic lows (both through metrics of address usage and transactions), and lifting this fee cap will reduce deficits for the Foundation’s efforts. We also recognise the Foundation’s efforts in effectively communicating to the intended projects and its adherence to existing legal agreements in relation to Nova.
We envision there to be a reduction of interest, making more efforts in establishing Orbit Chains, and Arbitrum One enticing can be beneficial for teams.
Overall we are satisfied with this proposition, and hope the extent of this technical administration leads to future economical initiatives for the Foundation to build atop of.
this is not how we usually do things in here, right?
I think it's unfair to break precedent to how we've been considering that an important snapshot vote is passed.
We should maintain the 3% quorum requirement for this offchain vote as well. Otherwise we are undermining the legitimacy of this decision when compared to all others.
First, I would like to outline a few pros and cons:
Pros:
Cons:
Considering Nova’s substantial operational costs, it seems clear that ending the subsidies is the right decision
