This AIP proposes minimizing Arbitrum Nova by transitioning it into a maintenance-oriented state with reduced capacity and deprioritized support. If approved via an offchain vote that meets constitutional quorum requirements, the minimization process will follow three structured phases aimed at limiting user disruption, supporting the migration of applications, integrations, liquidity, and funds to Arbitrum One, as well as reducing operational overhead no longer justified by Arbitrum Nova’s current usage and strategic value. Given the existing TVL and number active applications on Arbitrum Nova, this AIP recommends minimization rather than full deprecation.
Phase 1 covers the governance lifecycle of this AIP. Phase 2 introduces a 90-day migration window during which developers and users are supported in migrating to Arbitrum One while existing infrastructure remains fully operational. Phase 3 completes the transition to a minimized state by adopting a passive DAC model, shifting to a lightweight infrastructure model, deprecating most service provider contracts, and moving to a maintenance-only support model.
For context, Arbitrum Nova launched as a production proof-of-concept chain to validate the AnyTrust / Data Availability Committee (DAC) model and enable low-cost activity for emerging consumer use cases. However, teams currently seeking alternative Data Availability (DA) solutions can now launch their own Arbitrum chains, reducing demand for Arbitrum Nova. Today, Arbitrum Nova exhibits low activity, limited ecosystem attachment, and a non-trivial annual cost footprint that is primarily driven by aggregated contract and infrastructure costs. Accordingly, this AIP presents the rationale, specifications, and execution plan for minimizing Arbitrum Nova.
Arbitrum Nova launched in 2022 as a production proof-of-concept chain designed to explore scaling tradeoffs, validate the AnyTrust / DAC model, and support low-cost activity for emerging consumer use cases such as gaming, social applications, and micropayments. Strategically, it complemented Arbitrum One by providing a lower-stakes environment to test cost structures, developer experience, and user experience, creating optionality and helping diversify the Arbitrum technology stack.
Arbitrum Nova was designed for a set of conditions and strategic needs that are no longer as relevant in today’s environment. Maintaining it in its current form continues to incur meaningful costs, while demand has shifted toward more flexible and modern solutions. As the Arbitrum platform, Ethereum, and the broader ecosystem have evolved; Arbitrum chains and the AnyTrust / DAC model (validated in part by Arbitrum Nova and widely used across Arbitrum chains) have been successfully adopted, giving teams a more direct path to launch purpose-built chains. At the same time, improvements in DA economics (particularly through the introduction of Ethereum blobs) and rollup infrastructure have led to increased cost efficiency on Arbitrum One. This means that teams that previously might have deployed on Nova can now launch their own Arbitrum chains or build on Arbitrum One. As a result, Nova has effectively fulfilled its original purpose, and its relevance and demand have declined.
Current metrics reinforce this shift. According to L2Beat, Arbitrum Nova secures ~$20.37M in TVL (compared to ~$15.67B on Arbitrum One) and processes ~0.03 transactions per second (TPS), compared to ~16 TPS on Arbitrum One.
Furthermore, to maintain Arbitrum Nova from a cost perspective, the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) annually incurs approximately:
This results in a total annual cost of ~$1.52M. This cost structure is difficult to justify given current usage levels.
If Arbitrum Nova is minimized, estimated annual costs would decrease to approximately:
This represents a potential annual savings of ~$1.43M.
If this AIP passes via an offchain vote, the minimization of Arbitrum Nova will follow a three-phase process.
We are currently in Phase 1, which focuses on the governance lifecycle of this offchain proposal. If approved, Phase 2 will prioritize user withdrawals and developer support, while Phase 3 will implement technical and operational changes, including migration to passive DAC and lightweight infrastructure models, constitutional text changes and service provider contract deprecation.
Phase 2 consists of a 90-day migration window beginning immediately after the offchain vote passes. During this period, existing infrastructure will remain fully operational, and developers are strongly encouraged to migrate applications, integrations, and liquidity to Arbitrum One.
Phase 3 begins after this migration window and reflects Arbitrum Nova’s transition into a minimized, maintenance-oriented state with reduced capacity and deprioritized support.
During Phase 2, Offchain Labs (OCL) and the AF will help support developers migrating from Arbitrum Nova to Arbitrum One. Because both chains are Nitro-based and EVM-equivalent, most smart contracts can be migrated without specialized tooling or major rewrites.
However, teams are expected to handle their own application-layer migration work, including frontend updates, infrastructure changes, liquidity coordination, partner communication, and community migration.
Developers seeking support should use existing Arbitrum channels (e.g., Discord, Telegram, documentation). Support during this period will prioritize resolving practical migration blockers, including deployment issues, tooling challenges, RPC reliability, and migration planning.
The goal of Phase 2 is to provide a clear, time-bound window for teams to complete migration before Arbitrum Nova transitions to its minimized state.
At the start of Phase 3, Nova-specific developer support will be deprioritized as operational focus shifts to Arbitrum One and the chain moves to a lower-footprint model. Developers remaining on Arbitrum Nova should expect:
Teams that continue operating on Arbitrum Nova after this point do so with the understanding that under this AIP, the network will persist, but with reduced support and operational resources.
If the offchain vote passes, steps will be taken to help prevent additional user funds being bridged to Arbitrum Nova. The AF will coordinate with bridge providers (e.g. Relay, Symbiosis) to disable deposits, while OCL will engage with centralized exchanges to remove support for Arbitrum Nova deposits and withdrawals.
In parallel, users are encouraged to withdraw funds using the Arbitrum Canonical Bridge (accessible via the Arbitrum Portal), which enables direct withdrawals from Arbitrum Nova to Arbitrum One, or an alternate fast bridging solution.
For large transfers, the suggested route is:
For smaller or time-sensitive transfers, users may use fast bridging solutions (e.g. LI.FI-powered routes via Relay or Symbiosis), which offer faster withdrawals at higher fees.
It is worth noting that support for these fast bridging options depends on third-party providers and is subject to their continued support for the Arbitrum Nova network.
90 days after the offchain vote passing, Arbitrum Nova will transition to a passive DAC model by configuring the sequencer to post transaction data directly to Ethereum L1 blobs. The change should be implemented by adjusting the offchain configuration of the batchposter to post L1 blobs instead of using the DAC.
This removes operational reliance on active DAC coordination. Accordingly, DAC members can deprecate their signing infrastructure while remaining as ‘dormant’ DAC members onchain, providing a path for potential future reactivation if ever required.
Because these changes can be activated without requiring a protocol upgrade, implementation will proceed following a successful offchain vote that meets constitutional quorum requirements.
Arbitrum Nova will transition to a lightweight infrastructure model to align operational costs with reduced usage.
This includes downsizing the hardware specifications for both the Sequencer and Validator nodes from high-performance, redundant clusters, to a leaner footprint sufficient for maintenance-level activity.
Potential Impact:
90 days after the offchain vote, the majority of service provider contracts that maintain Arbitrum Nova will be deprecated by the AF.
Any required constitutional text changes will be bundled into a future onchain vote.
The following dates are tentative and subject to change.
This AIP proposes minimizing Arbitrum Nova by transitioning it into a maintenance-oriented state with reduced capacity and deprioritized support. If approved via an offchain vote that meets constitutional quorum requirements, the minimization process will follow three structured phases aimed at limiting user disruption, supporting the migration of applications, integrations, liquidity, and funds to Arbitrum One, as well as reducing operational overhead no longer justified by Arbitrum Nova’s current usage and strategic value. Given the existing TVL and number active applications on Arbitrum Nova, this AIP recommends minimization rather than full deprecation.
Phase 1 covers the governance lifecycle of this AIP. Phase 2 introduces a 90-day migration window during which developers and users are supported in migrating to Arbitrum One while existing infrastructure remains fully operational. Phase 3 completes the transition to a minimized state by adopting a passive DAC model, shifting to a lightweight infrastructure model, deprecating most service provider contracts, and moving to a maintenance-only support model.
For context, Arbitrum Nova launched as a production proof-of-concept chain to validate the AnyTrust / Data Availability Committee (DAC) model and enable low-cost activity for emerging consumer use cases. However, teams currently seeking alternative Data Availability (DA) solutions can now launch their own Arbitrum chains, reducing demand for Arbitrum Nova. Today, Arbitrum Nova exhibits low activity, limited ecosystem attachment, and a non-trivial annual cost footprint that is primarily driven by aggregated contract and infrastructure costs. Accordingly, this AIP presents the rationale, specifications, and execution plan for minimizing Arbitrum Nova.
Arbitrum Nova launched in 2022 as a production proof-of-concept chain designed to explore scaling tradeoffs, validate the AnyTrust / DAC model, and support low-cost activity for emerging consumer use cases such as gaming, social applications, and micropayments. Strategically, it complemented Arbitrum One by providing a lower-stakes environment to test cost structures, developer experience, and user experience, creating optionality and helping diversify the Arbitrum technology stack.
Arbitrum Nova was designed for a set of conditions and strategic needs that are no longer as relevant in today’s environment. Maintaining it in its current form continues to incur meaningful costs, while demand has shifted toward more flexible and modern solutions. As the Arbitrum platform, Ethereum, and the broader ecosystem have evolved; Arbitrum chains and the AnyTrust / DAC model (validated in part by Arbitrum Nova and widely used across Arbitrum chains) have been successfully adopted, giving teams a more direct path to launch purpose-built chains. At the same time, improvements in DA economics (particularly through the introduction of Ethereum blobs) and rollup infrastructure have led to increased cost efficiency on Arbitrum One. This means that teams that previously might have deployed on Nova can now launch their own Arbitrum chains or build on Arbitrum One. As a result, Nova has effectively fulfilled its original purpose, and its relevance and demand have declined.
Current metrics reinforce this shift. According to L2Beat, Arbitrum Nova secures ~$20.37M in TVL (compared to ~$15.67B on Arbitrum One) and processes ~0.03 transactions per second (TPS), compared to ~16 TPS on Arbitrum One.
Furthermore, to maintain Arbitrum Nova from a cost perspective, the Arbitrum Foundation (AF) annually incurs approximately:
This results in a total annual cost of ~$1.52M. This cost structure is difficult to justify given current usage levels.
If Arbitrum Nova is minimized, estimated annual costs would decrease to approximately:
This represents a potential annual savings of ~$1.43M.
If this AIP passes via an offchain vote, the minimization of Arbitrum Nova will follow a three-phase process.
We are currently in Phase 1, which focuses on the governance lifecycle of this offchain proposal. If approved, Phase 2 will prioritize user withdrawals and developer support, while Phase 3 will implement technical and operational changes, including migration to passive DAC and lightweight infrastructure models, constitutional text changes and service provider contract deprecation.
Phase 2 consists of a 90-day migration window beginning immediately after the offchain vote passes. During this period, existing infrastructure will remain fully operational, and developers are strongly encouraged to migrate applications, integrations, and liquidity to Arbitrum One.
Phase 3 begins after this migration window and reflects Arbitrum Nova’s transition into a minimized, maintenance-oriented state with reduced capacity and deprioritized support.
During Phase 2, Offchain Labs (OCL) and the AF will help support developers migrating from Arbitrum Nova to Arbitrum One. Because both chains are Nitro-based and EVM-equivalent, most smart contracts can be migrated without specialized tooling or major rewrites.
However, teams are expected to handle their own application-layer migration work, including frontend updates, infrastructure changes, liquidity coordination, partner communication, and community migration.
Developers seeking support should use existing Arbitrum channels (e.g., Discord, Telegram, documentation). Support during this period will prioritize resolving practical migration blockers, including deployment issues, tooling challenges, RPC reliability, and migration planning.
The goal of Phase 2 is to provide a clear, time-bound window for teams to complete migration before Arbitrum Nova transitions to its minimized state.
At the start of Phase 3, Nova-specific developer support will be deprioritized as operational focus shifts to Arbitrum One and the chain moves to a lower-footprint model. Developers remaining on Arbitrum Nova should expect:
Teams that continue operating on Arbitrum Nova after this point do so with the understanding that under this AIP, the network will persist, but with reduced support and operational resources.
If the offchain vote passes, steps will be taken to help prevent additional user funds being bridged to Arbitrum Nova. The AF will coordinate with bridge providers (e.g. Relay, Symbiosis) to disable deposits, while OCL will engage with centralized exchanges to remove support for Arbitrum Nova deposits and withdrawals.
In parallel, users are encouraged to withdraw funds using the Arbitrum Canonical Bridge (accessible via the Arbitrum Portal), which enables direct withdrawals from Arbitrum Nova to Arbitrum One, or an alternate fast bridging solution.
For large transfers, the suggested route is:
For smaller or time-sensitive transfers, users may use fast bridging solutions (e.g. LI.FI-powered routes via Relay or Symbiosis), which offer faster withdrawals at higher fees.
It is worth noting that support for these fast bridging options depends on third-party providers and is subject to their continued support for the Arbitrum Nova network.
90 days after the offchain vote passing, Arbitrum Nova will transition to a passive DAC model by configuring the sequencer to post transaction data directly to Ethereum L1 blobs. The change should be implemented by adjusting the offchain configuration of the batchposter to post L1 blobs instead of using the DAC.
This removes operational reliance on active DAC coordination. Accordingly, DAC members can deprecate their signing infrastructure while remaining as ‘dormant’ DAC members onchain, providing a path for potential future reactivation if ever required.
Because these changes can be activated without requiring a protocol upgrade, implementation will proceed following a successful offchain vote that meets constitutional quorum requirements.
Arbitrum Nova will transition to a lightweight infrastructure model to align operational costs with reduced usage.
This includes downsizing the hardware specifications for both the Sequencer and Validator nodes from high-performance, redundant clusters, to a leaner footprint sufficient for maintenance-level activity.
Potential Impact:
90 days after the offchain vote, the majority of service provider contracts that maintain Arbitrum Nova will be deprecated by the AF.
Any required constitutional text changes will be bundled into a future onchain vote.
The following dates are tentative and subject to change.
We are voting FOR this proposal. The DAC model was an interesting experiment and Nova clearly served its purpose, but it doesn't make sense to spend ~$1.52m annually maintaining a chain with ~$20m TVL, limited activity, and few signs of meaningful growth.
Subject: Addressing the Execution Risk: A Structured Framework for the 90-Day Nova Developer Migration
Hello Delegates and Core Contributors,
Thank you to the authors for pushing this necessary conversation forward. The mathematical reality post-EIP-4844 makes the minimization of Nova inevitable, and the opportunity costs of maintaining a redundant chain are too high.
Subject: Addressing the Execution Risk: A Structured Framework for the 90-Day Nova Developer Migration
Hello Delegates and Core Contributors,
Thank you to the authors for pushing this necessary conversation forward. The mathematical reality post-EIP-4844 makes the minimization of Nova inevitable, and the opportunity costs of maintaining a redundant chain are too high.
However, looking at the feedback from Lampros DAO and others, the primary friction point is no longer if we minimize Nova, but how we execute the 90-day migration window without triggering catastrophic developer churn and trust erosion. If we force a hard sunset without a white-glove operational transition, those builders will not migrate to Arbitrum One or Orbit; they will migrate to Base or Optimism.
The DAO currently lacks a dedicated, neutral operational unit to manage this 90-day window. Core engineering teams should not have their focus drained by managing Discord transitions and writing migration guides.
To solve this, I propose the immediate funding and authorization of a lightweight Nova Transition Taskforce (run by independent operational contributors) for the strict 90-day window, with the following deliverables:
1. The Nova-to-One/Orbit Migration Playbook: A comprehensive, actionable technical transition guide. This will map out the exact steps for dApps to migrate smart contracts, re-route batch posters, and update RPC endpoints without downtime.
2. Dedicated "White-Glove" Communication Channels: Establishing and managing a temporary, dedicated Discord/Telegram triage channel specifically for migrating Nova developers. This ensures they have a direct line for operational support rather than getting lost in the main Arbitrum general chats.
3. Weekly DAO Progress Matrix: A transparent weekly report delivered to this forum tracking migration metrics (TVL moved, number of active protocols successfully transitioned, and identified friction points) so Delegates have clear oversight of the 90-day window's success.
The Strategic Value: By allocating a highly targeted, micro-grant (estimated at $10,000 - $15,000 ARB for a 90-day dedicated project manager/strategist), the DAO protects millions of dollars in ecosystem TVL and developer goodwill.
If there is delegate appetite for this structural safeguard, I am prepared to step in as an independent Contributor to architect this playbook and manage the 90-day communication bridge, allowing the core team to remain focused on the broader ecosystem trajectory.
Would love to hear thoughts from @LamprosDAO and others on if an explicit playbook and dedicated liaison would alleviate the migration anxieties.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
We view this proposal as a pragmatic response to the current state of the ecosystem. While Nova successfully fulfilled its original purpose, usage and ecosystem activity have increasingly concentrated on Arbitrum One over time.
Cornell Blockchain will be voting FOR this proposal. We greatly appreciate the Arbitrum Foundation for providing a clear, structured, and transparent framework for this transition, and agree that it is necessary to move away from Arbitrum Nova. Making this shift is a responsible, programmatic decision that helps align costs with actual network usage.
I am voting FOR this proposal. It is prudent to periodically re-evaluate where resources are being directed and to see if the expenditure is justified. Based on the current activity levels, the current costs are not justified.
Given Nova's low usage but non‑zero TVL and users, what concrete accountability checkpoints or course‑correction mechanisms are you proposing if the 90‑day migration and communication plan does not go as smoothly as expected....?
I support this proposal.
Arbitrum Nova clearly played an important historical role for the ecosystem by validating the AnyTrust / DAC model and enabling experimentation with low-cost consumer-focused applications. In many ways, Nova achieved its original mission.
I support this proposal.
Arbitrum Nova clearly played an important historical role for the ecosystem by validating the AnyTrust / DAC model and enabling experimentation with low-cost consumer-focused applications. In many ways, Nova achieved its original mission.
Today, however, the ecosystem landscape has changed significantly. Orbit chains, improved DA economics, and lower costs on Arbitrum One reduce the need for maintaining Nova as a fully supported standalone environment. The current usage metrics and TVL appear difficult to justify against the ongoing operational costs.
I also appreciate that this proposal opts for minimization rather than abrupt deprecation. The phased approach, migration window, and continued maintenance mode reduce disruption while still allowing the DAO to simplify infrastructure and improve capital efficiency.
The most important aspect going forward will be communication and migration support. Existing teams and users should have clear guidance, stable infrastructure during the transition period, and sufficient time to migrate liquidity and integrations safely.
Overall, this feels like a pragmatic evolution of the Arbitrum ecosystem rather than a negative signal.
We are voting FOR this proposal. The DAC model was an interesting experiment and Nova clearly served its purpose, but it doesn't make sense to spend ~$1.52m annually maintaining a chain with ~$20m TVL, limited activity, and few signs of meaningful growth.
Subject: Addressing the Execution Risk: A Structured Framework for the 90-Day Nova Developer Migration
Hello Delegates and Core Contributors,
Thank you to the authors for pushing this necessary conversation forward. The mathematical reality post-EIP-4844 makes the minimization of Nova inevitable, and the opportunity costs of maintaining a redundant chain are too high.
Subject: Addressing the Execution Risk: A Structured Framework for the 90-Day Nova Developer Migration
Hello Delegates and Core Contributors,
Thank you to the authors for pushing this necessary conversation forward. The mathematical reality post-EIP-4844 makes the minimization of Nova inevitable, and the opportunity costs of maintaining a redundant chain are too high.
However, looking at the feedback from Lampros DAO and others, the primary friction point is no longer if we minimize Nova, but how we execute the 90-day migration window without triggering catastrophic developer churn and trust erosion. If we force a hard sunset without a white-glove operational transition, those builders will not migrate to Arbitrum One or Orbit; they will migrate to Base or Optimism.
The DAO currently lacks a dedicated, neutral operational unit to manage this 90-day window. Core engineering teams should not have their focus drained by managing Discord transitions and writing migration guides.
To solve this, I propose the immediate funding and authorization of a lightweight Nova Transition Taskforce (run by independent operational contributors) for the strict 90-day window, with the following deliverables:
1. The Nova-to-One/Orbit Migration Playbook: A comprehensive, actionable technical transition guide. This will map out the exact steps for dApps to migrate smart contracts, re-route batch posters, and update RPC endpoints without downtime.
2. Dedicated "White-Glove" Communication Channels: Establishing and managing a temporary, dedicated Discord/Telegram triage channel specifically for migrating Nova developers. This ensures they have a direct line for operational support rather than getting lost in the main Arbitrum general chats.
3. Weekly DAO Progress Matrix: A transparent weekly report delivered to this forum tracking migration metrics (TVL moved, number of active protocols successfully transitioned, and identified friction points) so Delegates have clear oversight of the 90-day window's success.
The Strategic Value: By allocating a highly targeted, micro-grant (estimated at $10,000 - $15,000 ARB for a 90-day dedicated project manager/strategist), the DAO protects millions of dollars in ecosystem TVL and developer goodwill.
If there is delegate appetite for this structural safeguard, I am prepared to step in as an independent Contributor to architect this playbook and manage the 90-day communication bridge, allowing the core team to remain focused on the broader ecosystem trajectory.
Would love to hear thoughts from @LamprosDAO and others on if an explicit playbook and dedicated liaison would alleviate the migration anxieties.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
We view this proposal as a pragmatic response to the current state of the ecosystem. While Nova successfully fulfilled its original purpose, usage and ecosystem activity have increasingly concentrated on Arbitrum One over time.
Cornell Blockchain will be voting FOR this proposal. We greatly appreciate the Arbitrum Foundation for providing a clear, structured, and transparent framework for this transition, and agree that it is necessary to move away from Arbitrum Nova. Making this shift is a responsible, programmatic decision that helps align costs with actual network usage.
I am voting FOR this proposal. It is prudent to periodically re-evaluate where resources are being directed and to see if the expenditure is justified. Based on the current activity levels, the current costs are not justified.
Given Nova's low usage but non‑zero TVL and users, what concrete accountability checkpoints or course‑correction mechanisms are you proposing if the 90‑day migration and communication plan does not go as smoothly as expected....?
I support this proposal.
Arbitrum Nova clearly played an important historical role for the ecosystem by validating the AnyTrust / DAC model and enabling experimentation with low-cost consumer-focused applications. In many ways, Nova achieved its original mission.
I support this proposal.
Arbitrum Nova clearly played an important historical role for the ecosystem by validating the AnyTrust / DAC model and enabling experimentation with low-cost consumer-focused applications. In many ways, Nova achieved its original mission.
Today, however, the ecosystem landscape has changed significantly. Orbit chains, improved DA economics, and lower costs on Arbitrum One reduce the need for maintaining Nova as a fully supported standalone environment. The current usage metrics and TVL appear difficult to justify against the ongoing operational costs.
I also appreciate that this proposal opts for minimization rather than abrupt deprecation. The phased approach, migration window, and continued maintenance mode reduce disruption while still allowing the DAO to simplify infrastructure and improve capital efficiency.
The most important aspect going forward will be communication and migration support. Existing teams and users should have clear guidance, stable infrastructure during the transition period, and sufficient time to migrate liquidity and integrations safely.
Overall, this feels like a pragmatic evolution of the Arbitrum ecosystem rather than a negative signal.
Merlyn Labs is voting FOR this proposal.
When costs outweigh present and expected future benefits, this is the necessary course of action.
Thank you to the Arbitrum Foundation and the team for putting together this detailed proposal. The phased approach with a 90-day migration window shows thoughtful consideration for existing projects and users on Nova. Appreciate the transparency and the effort to ensure a smooth transition for the community.... @Arbitrum
Merlyn Labs is voting FOR this proposal.
When costs outweigh present and expected future benefits, this is the necessary course of action.
Thank you to the Arbitrum Foundation and the team for putting together this detailed proposal. The phased approach with a 90-day migration window shows thoughtful consideration for existing projects and users on Nova. Appreciate the transparency and the effort to ensure a smooth transition for the community.... @Arbitrum
The call recording can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXhuQWQJxKiDqIt3qFVdNq7nXOoUu7av/view?usp=sharing
We will be hosting an open discussion governance call on this proposal.
Minimize Arbitrum Nova: Open Discussion #1 Wednesday, May 20 · 2:00 – 3:00pm Time zone: UTC Google Meet joining info Video call link: https://meet.google.com/tid-ygts-pyv
Thank you for your question, @mconnectdao. As stated in the proposal, because Nova is being minimized rather than fully deprecated, users and projects will still be able to migrate away from Nova after the 90-day migration window (albeit with less support and potentially fewer bridging solutions available).
Projects that continue operating on Arbitrum Nova after this point would be doing so with the understanding that if this proposal passes, the network will persist, but with reduced support and operational resources.
The call recording can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXhuQWQJxKiDqIt3qFVdNq7nXOoUu7av/view?usp=sharing
We will be hosting an open discussion governance call on this proposal.
Minimize Arbitrum Nova: Open Discussion #1 Wednesday, May 20 · 2:00 – 3:00pm Time zone: UTC Google Meet joining info Video call link: https://meet.google.com/tid-ygts-pyv
Thank you for your question, @mconnectdao. As stated in the proposal, because Nova is being minimized rather than fully deprecated, users and projects will still be able to migrate away from Nova after the 90-day migration window (albeit with less support and potentially fewer bridging solutions available).
Projects that continue operating on Arbitrum Nova after this point would be doing so with the understanding that if this proposal passes, the network will persist, but with reduced support and operational resources.
Entropy is supportive of this proposal and will be voting FOR on the offchain vote. We agree with the AF in that Nova has effectively served its original purpose as a production proof-of-concept for the Arbitrum tech stack and based on its current activity, an annual cost of ~$1.52M is clearly not justified. Minimizing Nova is a prudent financial decision and an example of the types of decisions that every AAE will need to make more consistently. We hope to see continued streamlining of spend on infrastructure that no longer attracts demand, and concentrating resources where there are genuine signs of revenue growth potential and/or strategic value.
Voting FOR - It's reasonable to refocus resources where there is actual user demand, and this seems a logical path to do so for Nova.
Thank you for the detailed breakdown; minimizing Nova seems to be the responsible thing at this point. Planning on voting in favor.
Voted FOR;
The outlined reasons for minimizing Arbitrum Nova are well supported by the data: current usage and ecosystem activity no longer justify its operational costs, while the projected savings represent a meaningful improvement in resource allocation efficiency across the ecosystem.
Voted FOR;
The outlined reasons for minimizing Arbitrum Nova are well supported by the data: current usage and ecosystem activity no longer justify its operational costs, while the projected savings represent a meaningful improvement in resource allocation efficiency across the ecosystem.
More importantly, the proposal outlines a clear and reasonable migration pathway. The transition period, dedicated developer support, and explicit expectations regarding infrastructure and service levels provide teams and service providers with sufficient time and clarity to plan and execute migrations to Arbitrum One.
Voting FOR
Nova was launched in 2022 as a production proof-of-concept for the AnyTrust/DAC model. That model is now validated and widely deployed across Arbitrum Orbit chains --- Nova has effectively fulfilled its original R&D purpose. Meanwhile, Arbitrum One's blob-era economics have eliminated Nova's original cost advantage for low-fee activity.
Voting FOR
Nova was launched in 2022 as a production proof-of-concept for the AnyTrust/DAC model. That model is now validated and widely deployed across Arbitrum Orbit chains --- Nova has effectively fulfilled its original R&D purpose. Meanwhile, Arbitrum One's blob-era economics have eliminated Nova's original cost advantage for low-fee activity.
The numbers make the case on their own: ~$20M TVL (≈0.13% of Arbitrum One) and ~0.03 TPS against ~$1.52M/year in AF maintenance costs. Minimization (rather than full deprecation) is the right call --- it preserves optionality for remaining TVL and dormant DAC members while saving the DAO ~$1.43M/year.
The phased plan is well-designed: a 90-day migration window before any reductions, AF coordinating with bridges and CEXes to prevent further inflows, and a conservative technical path (passive DAC posting blobs directly to L1, lightweight sequencer/validator). Users keep a working bridge route via the Portal; developers get a Nitro-to-Nitro migration that doesn't require rewrites.
No material concerns. Deferring constitutional text changes to a separate Q3 onchain vote is appropriate.
Voting FOR
Nova was a useful POC, but it's time to move on.
Voting FOR
Nova was a useful POC, but it's time to move on.
I would hope we can do right by the projects using it... offer them real hand-holding to migrate to arb1, it says that will happen, but I hope we dedicate real resources for it and even do proactive outreach instead of reacting to requests... some projects might have real users and real TVL but not active devs... we should figure that out ourselves.
If we choose to shut something down, we should include in the shut down in a way that minimizes the fall out from the users we had on the product, not just the dev teams, but also the users on the dapps.
Also, it would be mice to get an easy vibe coded dapp up like what Owocki made for PGN, so its easy for end users to get out:
Ill be voting FOR, as Abel said Nova played an important role but the maths doesnt sum up anymore so putting it on maintenance state make sense. The 90 day migration window gives projects still on Nova enough time to move.
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.
Arbitrum Nova played a instrumental role in demonstrating cost minimisation, versatility of usage, and great emphasis on data availability. Unfortunately the market (as referenced with its activity usage in L2Beat) and the current economic costs are not pragmatic for Arbitrum's longevity, the decision of saving $1.43M/annually following a reduction in Arbitrum's output spend on this infrastructure is reasonable.
Entropy is supportive of this proposal and will be voting FOR on the offchain vote. We agree with the AF in that Nova has effectively served its original purpose as a production proof-of-concept for the Arbitrum tech stack and based on its current activity, an annual cost of ~$1.52M is clearly not justified. Minimizing Nova is a prudent financial decision and an example of the types of decisions that every AAE will need to make more consistently. We hope to see continued streamlining of spend on infrastructure that no longer attracts demand, and concentrating resources where there are genuine signs of revenue growth potential and/or strategic value.
Voting FOR - It's reasonable to refocus resources where there is actual user demand, and this seems a logical path to do so for Nova.
Thank you for the detailed breakdown; minimizing Nova seems to be the responsible thing at this point. Planning on voting in favor.
Voted FOR;
The outlined reasons for minimizing Arbitrum Nova are well supported by the data: current usage and ecosystem activity no longer justify its operational costs, while the projected savings represent a meaningful improvement in resource allocation efficiency across the ecosystem.
Voted FOR;
The outlined reasons for minimizing Arbitrum Nova are well supported by the data: current usage and ecosystem activity no longer justify its operational costs, while the projected savings represent a meaningful improvement in resource allocation efficiency across the ecosystem.
More importantly, the proposal outlines a clear and reasonable migration pathway. The transition period, dedicated developer support, and explicit expectations regarding infrastructure and service levels provide teams and service providers with sufficient time and clarity to plan and execute migrations to Arbitrum One.
Voting FOR
Nova was launched in 2022 as a production proof-of-concept for the AnyTrust/DAC model. That model is now validated and widely deployed across Arbitrum Orbit chains --- Nova has effectively fulfilled its original R&D purpose. Meanwhile, Arbitrum One's blob-era economics have eliminated Nova's original cost advantage for low-fee activity.
Voting FOR
Nova was launched in 2022 as a production proof-of-concept for the AnyTrust/DAC model. That model is now validated and widely deployed across Arbitrum Orbit chains --- Nova has effectively fulfilled its original R&D purpose. Meanwhile, Arbitrum One's blob-era economics have eliminated Nova's original cost advantage for low-fee activity.
The numbers make the case on their own: ~$20M TVL (≈0.13% of Arbitrum One) and ~0.03 TPS against ~$1.52M/year in AF maintenance costs. Minimization (rather than full deprecation) is the right call --- it preserves optionality for remaining TVL and dormant DAC members while saving the DAO ~$1.43M/year.
The phased plan is well-designed: a 90-day migration window before any reductions, AF coordinating with bridges and CEXes to prevent further inflows, and a conservative technical path (passive DAC posting blobs directly to L1, lightweight sequencer/validator). Users keep a working bridge route via the Portal; developers get a Nitro-to-Nitro migration that doesn't require rewrites.
No material concerns. Deferring constitutional text changes to a separate Q3 onchain vote is appropriate.
Voting FOR
Nova was a useful POC, but it's time to move on.
Voting FOR
Nova was a useful POC, but it's time to move on.
I would hope we can do right by the projects using it... offer them real hand-holding to migrate to arb1, it says that will happen, but I hope we dedicate real resources for it and even do proactive outreach instead of reacting to requests... some projects might have real users and real TVL but not active devs... we should figure that out ourselves.
If we choose to shut something down, we should include in the shut down in a way that minimizes the fall out from the users we had on the product, not just the dev teams, but also the users on the dapps.
Also, it would be mice to get an easy vibe coded dapp up like what Owocki made for PGN, so its easy for end users to get out:
Ill be voting FOR, as Abel said Nova played an important role but the maths doesnt sum up anymore so putting it on maintenance state make sense. The 90 day migration window gives projects still on Nova enough time to move.
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.
Arbitrum Nova played a instrumental role in demonstrating cost minimisation, versatility of usage, and great emphasis on data availability. Unfortunately the market (as referenced with its activity usage in L2Beat) and the current economic costs are not pragmatic for Arbitrum's longevity, the decision of saving $1.43M/annually following a reduction in Arbitrum's output spend on this infrastructure is reasonable.
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.
Arbitrum Nova played a instrumental role in demonstrating cost minimisation, versatility of usage, and great emphasis on data availability. Unfortunately the market (as referenced with its activity usage in L2Beat) and the current economic costs are not pragmatic for Arbitrum's longevity, the decision of saving $1.43M/annually following a reduction in Arbitrum's output spend on this infrastructure is reasonable.
Based on feedback, echoing @manugotsuka's question on security concerns, monitoring schedules will be longer, we hope these cost cutting procedures don't end up leaving security of assets at the tail end.
Overall, we're FOR this decision of moving the chain into a maintenance only state.
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.
Arbitrum Nova played a instrumental role in demonstrating cost minimisation, versatility of usage, and great emphasis on data availability. Unfortunately the market (as referenced with its activity usage in L2Beat) and the current economic costs are not pragmatic for Arbitrum's longevity, the decision of saving $1.43M/annually following a reduction in Arbitrum's output spend on this infrastructure is reasonable.
Based on feedback, echoing @manugotsuka's question on security concerns, monitoring schedules will be longer, we hope these cost cutting procedures don't end up leaving security of assets at the tail end.
Overall, we're FOR this decision of moving the chain into a maintenance only state.
