This AIP proposes to combine two separate actions into a single on-chain vote for the ArbitrumDAO to consider: the adoption of Timeboost and a Nova Fee Sweep action. Timeboost introduces a new transaction ordering policy for Arbitrum One and Nova. The Nova Fee Sweep action will forward historical transaction fees to the ArbitrumDAO Treasury, a task leftover from the Nova Fee Router Proposal.
As a recap, Timeboost enables auctions for the rights to an express lane on both Arbitrum One and Nova, giving the winner a time advantage for transaction inclusion. Use of bid proceeds from the auction will be at the discretion of the ArbitrumDAO, with the ArbitrumDAO having already signaled strong support for collecting bids in ETH in the temperature check vote on Snapshot.
Meanwhile, the Nova Fee Sweep action applies to historical Nova transaction fees currently held in the L1TimelockAlias; these fees will be swept into the DAO Treasury with the use of the modernized fee collection infrastructure outlined in the Nova Fee Router Proposal. The full balance of ETH–currently 1,885 ETH–will be transferred to the DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One using established smart contract infrastructure.
Arbitrum Chains currently order transactions on a First-Come, First-Served basis (FCFS) basis. The original motivation to implement FCFS was threefold:
Unfortunately, relying solely on FCFS transaction ordering is not an ideal long-term solution. This is because when opportunities to profitably arbitrage across exchanges arise on Arbitrum, “MEV Searchers” race to get their transaction included before anyone else so that they can capture this profit. This latency race involves a lot of spam, placing stress on chain infrastructure and causing searchers to wastefully invest off-chain in faster hardware. Furthermore, none of the MEV generated is captured by the chain and instead all profits are collected by searchers.
Timeboost is a new transaction ordering policy that retains many of the great benefits currently in place for Arbitrum chains, including frontrunning protection and fast block times, while allowing the chain to reduce negative externalities from the racing behavior induced by MEV searchers. Additionally, it can socialize the benefits of the transaction sequencing market back to the ArbitrumDAO.
Historically, Nova transaction fees accumulated to the L1TimelockAlias address, which required a lengthy constitutional proposal process for the ArbitrumDAO to access or spend. The successful passing of the Nova Fee Router proposal redirected these fees to a system of "fee routers" that automatically transfers funds to the ArbitrumDAO treasury, reducing quorum requirements, reducing delays, and simplifying accounting by consolidating funds directly in the treasury. As of 28 August 2024, Nova transaction fees began accumulating to a series of RewardDistributor contracts as outlined in the Nova Fee Router proposal, streamlining the revenue collection process for the DAO.
However, transaction fees that accumulated to the L1TimelockAlias before the Nova Fee Router change went into effect remain in the L1TimelockAlias, totalling 1,885.79 ETH. This proposal intends to sweep these historical Nova transaction fees from the legacy L1TimelockAlias address into the new fee collection system. This will be a one-time task because funds collected after 28 August 2024 have been, and will continue to be, automatically forwarded through the new fee collection system to the ArbitrumDAO treasury.
Sustainable: Timeboost offers the ArbitrumDAO an opportunity to capture additional revenue that does not come at the expense of users, since the value being captured is already being collected by winning latency races on-chain.
Technically-Inclusive: Timeboost allows any user to benefit from faster transaction inclusion via an autonomously-run auction that is open to all users.
Neutral and Open: The auction for the express lane is permissionless and participation is open to everyone, where the highest bid wins but pays the 2nd highest bid.
Empowerment: The ArbitrumDAO can configure all aspects of Timeboost, including enabling or disabling it, the auction’s design, and how to handle proceeds.
Operations: Collecting historical transaction revenue from Nova enables the DAO to continue funding general operations.
Transparency: Transaction fees will be forwarded to the DAO Treasury with the use of verifiable on-chain actions and audited smart contracts.
Auction Contract: A smart contract that handles the state, accounting of funds for bids, and various operations of the Timeboost auction. The contract is deployed on the target chain for which Timeboost is enabled.
Autonomous auctioneer: Off chain software that receives bids from Timeboost auction participants, processes and validates bids, and then posts the top valid bid (or top two valid bids in the case of a tie) to the Auction Contract to resolve the Timeboost auction. The autonomous auctioneer, for a given chain, is provisioned & deployed by an entity designated by the chain’s owner.
Express lane: A separate endpoint for submitting transactions to the sequencer that has priority access compared to normally submitted transactions.
Express lane controller: An address, defined in the Auction Contract, that is granted the privilege to use the express lane. These privileges are granted after verifying that the incoming transactions were properly signed by the express lane controller, among other checks.
First come, first serve: A type of transaction ordering policy used by the sequencer in Arbitrum chains whereby incoming transactions are sequenced into a block in the order that the transactions arrived.
MEV: Maximal extractible value. In the context of Timeboost, MEV refers to the maximum amount of profit someone could make by including their transactions slightly faster than anyone else.
Timeboost: A transaction ordering policy in which entities can bid for the right to access an express lane on the sequencer for faster transaction inclusion. See the research specification to learn more.
Transaction ordering policy: The rules and logic employed by a chain to order incoming transactions into a block.
L1TimelockAlias: address that historically accumulated Nova transaction fees but was replaced by RewardDistributor contracts as a part of the Nova Fee Router Proposal to upgrade the fee collection infrastructure; historical fees held by this address are the subject of this proposal.
ChildToParentRouter: smart contract that, when called, creates an L2-to-L1 message which sends the contract’s full ETH balance; once the message is executed, the ETH is transferred to a ParentToChildRouter smart contract on L1
ParentToChildRouter: smart contract that, when called, creates a retryable ticket which transfers the contract’s full ETH balance from L1 to the DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One
The full specification for the Timeboost auction can be found here: https://github.com/OffchainLabs/timeboost-design.
The implementation consists of an auction contract, autonomous auctioneer, and changes to the sequencer:
Timeboost changes the guarantees around transaction inclusion and introduces two different paths:
Nearly all users will continue to submit transactions using the normal path. Timeboost introduces an express lane that can be purchased by sophisticated actors via an auction every minute, with each auction closing 15 seconds before the next round begins.
All bids in the auction are kept private until after the bid submission deadline and the auction winner will pay the same price as the second-highest bid of that round. A bid will only be accepted if it is at or above a minimum bid (the reservePrice). The autonomous auctioneer has the right to change the reservePrice, but it cannot be lower than the minReservePrice, which can only be changed by the ArbitrumDAO. Note, the reservePrice does not represent the expected value of a bid for the express lane, it is just a minimum bid that will be accepted.
This proposal proposes setting the minReservePrice to 0.001 ETH, as the ArbitrumDAO has already signaled strong support for collecting bids in ETH in the temperature check vote on Snapshot. As mentioned above, the ArbitrumDAO has full control over how to spend the proceeds from the Timeboost auction, with 3% of auction proceeds to be set aside for the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which helps fund core Arbitrum development. Governance can change the token used for the auction and the minReservePrice, at any time.
If this proposal passes, the following data sources will eventually made available after Timeboost goes live on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova:
Historical bid data for auction participants, outside of the two highest bids (that are otherwise posted on-chain)
A way to label/identify which transactions were sequenced in the express lane (i.e. Timeboosted transactions).
Finally, the proposed version of Timeboost is compatible with a centralized sequencer. However, the Timeboost policy will also be compatible with proposals for a decentralized sequencer.
Timeboost’s design is the culmination of over a year of research and development by the team at Offchain Labs. While the on-chain implementation will be independently audited by Trail of Bits before the Tally vote, the long term performance of Timeboost can only truly be evaluated with real-world data - data that can help hone and fine-tune Timeboost’s design for the benefit of the ArbitrumDAO.
To that end, although the auctioneer will function autonomously, this AIP proposes granting the current sequencer operator the below rights to make the following adjustments from time to time for a period of two (2) years. The rights described below are expected to only be exercised in circumstances where doing so would enhance Timeboost’s long-term stability, preserve or improve the user experience for those using Timeboost-enabled Arbitrum chains, increase the security posture, resiliency, or stability of the chain, and/or otherwise help increase revenue for the ArbitrumDAO:
Should this vote pass, modifications to other Timeboost parameters, including to values outside the specified ranges and to those not already listed above, but which are otherwise listed in the design specification, will require a constitutional governance vote, in accordance with the ArbitrumDAO Constitution. In cases where the ArbitrumDAO wishes to pause or disable Timeboost, the ArbitrumDAO may use the outcome of a Snapshot vote to do so (since Timeboost has an off-chain component). This special provision allows the ArbitrumDAO to react to market conditions quicker than what a Tally, on-chain vote would allow (~14 days as opposed to ~30 days). The transfer of express lane rights will not be supported by the Arbitrum Nitro node software in the initial launch and may be implemented at a future date via a regular node upgrade. A round's express lane controller, at their choice, can still sign transactions on behalf of others on a per-transaction basis.]
It is important to emphasize that for Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, the DAO-elected Arbitrum Security Council can, at any time, perform either Emergency Actions or Non-Emergency Actions to execute software upgrades, perform routine maintenance, and other parameter adjustments to Timeboost, in each case in accordance with its existing powers. These actions can include, but are not limited solely to, exercising the rights proposed above for the current sequencer operator. More information about the Arbitrum Security Council and their scope of powers can be found in the ArbitrumDAO Constitution.
The full script for executing the Nova Fee Sweep can be found here: Standalone Nova Fee Sweep Proposal #303
This script will be executed following a successful governance vote and transfer Nova transaction fees from the historical L1TimelockAlias to the ChildToParentRouter.
Once transaction fees are received by the ChildToParentRouter, the automated fee collection process will be activated, forwarding fees to the ParentToChildRouter on L1 and eventually to the DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One; complete implementation details for this automated fee routing can be found in the preceding Tally proposal. Please note that Reward Distributor contracts are irrelevant for this particular action as historical fees from the L1TimelockAlias will be transferred directly to the ChildToParentRouter.
The proposal to have Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova adopt Timeboost was posted to the governance forum in June 2024, to gather feedback and facilitate productive discussions. Furthermore, a temperature check vote on Snapshot was passed by the ArbitrumDAO, signalling support for Timeboost and the use of ETH to collect bids. Since then, a third-party, independent audit of the Timeboost auction contract was done by Trail of Bits and all issues were addressed (audit report published publicly here). Testing of Timeboost’s components end-to-end has begun and there are plans to imminently roll out Timeboost to Arbitrum Sepolia (the ArbitrumDAO and the public will be informed when this happens).
Similarly, the proposed Nova Fee Sweep action will forward historical transaction fees to the ArbitrumDAO Treasury, a task left over from the Nova Fee Router Proposal. More specifically, this action applies to 1,885.793 ETH worth of historical Nova transaction fees currently held in the L1TimelockAlias; these fees will be swept into the DAO Treasury with the use of the modernized fee router infrastructure. There will be a separate temperature check on Snapshot for the Nova Fee Sweep action which will be posted next Thursday on January 30th.
This proposal combines both the Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP into a single proposal for an on-chain vote on Tally. If the on-chain vote on Tally passes successfully, Timeboost will be enabled on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova and the Nova Fee Sweep action will be executed. Down the line, the Arbitrum Foundation will update the DAO on a tentative date for the creation of the onchain AIP on this proposal thread.
Here is a compilation of FAQs based on questions received from the community.
If there are questions that are not covered in this FAQ document, please add them as a comment to this forum post, and they will be added to the FAQ document accordingly.
Similarly, a one-pager has been published that recaps a few key principles about Timeboost and summarizes the expectations around Timeboost’s use for chain owners, like the ArbitrumDAO here for delegates to refer to when considering this proposal.
This AIP proposes to combine two separate actions into a single on-chain vote for the ArbitrumDAO to consider: the adoption of Timeboost and a Nova Fee Sweep action. Timeboost introduces a new transaction ordering policy for Arbitrum One and Nova. The Nova Fee Sweep action will forward historical transaction fees to the ArbitrumDAO Treasury, a task leftover from the Nova Fee Router Proposal.
As a recap, Timeboost enables auctions for the rights to an express lane on both Arbitrum One and Nova, giving the winner a time advantage for transaction inclusion. Use of bid proceeds from the auction will be at the discretion of the ArbitrumDAO, with the ArbitrumDAO having already signaled strong support for collecting bids in ETH in the temperature check vote on Snapshot.
Meanwhile, the Nova Fee Sweep action applies to historical Nova transaction fees currently held in the L1TimelockAlias; these fees will be swept into the DAO Treasury with the use of the modernized fee collection infrastructure outlined in the Nova Fee Router Proposal. The full balance of ETH–currently 1,885 ETH–will be transferred to the DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One using established smart contract infrastructure.
Arbitrum Chains currently order transactions on a First-Come, First-Served basis (FCFS) basis. The original motivation to implement FCFS was threefold:
Unfortunately, relying solely on FCFS transaction ordering is not an ideal long-term solution. This is because when opportunities to profitably arbitrage across exchanges arise on Arbitrum, “MEV Searchers” race to get their transaction included before anyone else so that they can capture this profit. This latency race involves a lot of spam, placing stress on chain infrastructure and causing searchers to wastefully invest off-chain in faster hardware. Furthermore, none of the MEV generated is captured by the chain and instead all profits are collected by searchers.
Timeboost is a new transaction ordering policy that retains many of the great benefits currently in place for Arbitrum chains, including frontrunning protection and fast block times, while allowing the chain to reduce negative externalities from the racing behavior induced by MEV searchers. Additionally, it can socialize the benefits of the transaction sequencing market back to the ArbitrumDAO.
Historically, Nova transaction fees accumulated to the L1TimelockAlias address, which required a lengthy constitutional proposal process for the ArbitrumDAO to access or spend. The successful passing of the Nova Fee Router proposal redirected these fees to a system of "fee routers" that automatically transfers funds to the ArbitrumDAO treasury, reducing quorum requirements, reducing delays, and simplifying accounting by consolidating funds directly in the treasury. As of 28 August 2024, Nova transaction fees began accumulating to a series of RewardDistributor contracts as outlined in the Nova Fee Router proposal, streamlining the revenue collection process for the DAO.
However, transaction fees that accumulated to the L1TimelockAlias before the Nova Fee Router change went into effect remain in the L1TimelockAlias, totalling 1,885.79 ETH. This proposal intends to sweep these historical Nova transaction fees from the legacy L1TimelockAlias address into the new fee collection system. This will be a one-time task because funds collected after 28 August 2024 have been, and will continue to be, automatically forwarded through the new fee collection system to the ArbitrumDAO treasury.
Sustainable: Timeboost offers the ArbitrumDAO an opportunity to capture additional revenue that does not come at the expense of users, since the value being captured is already being collected by winning latency races on-chain.
Technically-Inclusive: Timeboost allows any user to benefit from faster transaction inclusion via an autonomously-run auction that is open to all users.
Neutral and Open: The auction for the express lane is permissionless and participation is open to everyone, where the highest bid wins but pays the 2nd highest bid.
Empowerment: The ArbitrumDAO can configure all aspects of Timeboost, including enabling or disabling it, the auction’s design, and how to handle proceeds.
Operations: Collecting historical transaction revenue from Nova enables the DAO to continue funding general operations.
Transparency: Transaction fees will be forwarded to the DAO Treasury with the use of verifiable on-chain actions and audited smart contracts.
Auction Contract: A smart contract that handles the state, accounting of funds for bids, and various operations of the Timeboost auction. The contract is deployed on the target chain for which Timeboost is enabled.
Autonomous auctioneer: Off chain software that receives bids from Timeboost auction participants, processes and validates bids, and then posts the top valid bid (or top two valid bids in the case of a tie) to the Auction Contract to resolve the Timeboost auction. The autonomous auctioneer, for a given chain, is provisioned & deployed by an entity designated by the chain’s owner.
Express lane: A separate endpoint for submitting transactions to the sequencer that has priority access compared to normally submitted transactions.
Express lane controller: An address, defined in the Auction Contract, that is granted the privilege to use the express lane. These privileges are granted after verifying that the incoming transactions were properly signed by the express lane controller, among other checks.
First come, first serve: A type of transaction ordering policy used by the sequencer in Arbitrum chains whereby incoming transactions are sequenced into a block in the order that the transactions arrived.
MEV: Maximal extractible value. In the context of Timeboost, MEV refers to the maximum amount of profit someone could make by including their transactions slightly faster than anyone else.
Timeboost: A transaction ordering policy in which entities can bid for the right to access an express lane on the sequencer for faster transaction inclusion. See the research specification to learn more.
Transaction ordering policy: The rules and logic employed by a chain to order incoming transactions into a block.
L1TimelockAlias: address that historically accumulated Nova transaction fees but was replaced by RewardDistributor contracts as a part of the Nova Fee Router Proposal to upgrade the fee collection infrastructure; historical fees held by this address are the subject of this proposal.
ChildToParentRouter: smart contract that, when called, creates an L2-to-L1 message which sends the contract’s full ETH balance; once the message is executed, the ETH is transferred to a ParentToChildRouter smart contract on L1
ParentToChildRouter: smart contract that, when called, creates a retryable ticket which transfers the contract’s full ETH balance from L1 to the DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One
The full specification for the Timeboost auction can be found here: https://github.com/OffchainLabs/timeboost-design.
The implementation consists of an auction contract, autonomous auctioneer, and changes to the sequencer:
Timeboost changes the guarantees around transaction inclusion and introduces two different paths:
Nearly all users will continue to submit transactions using the normal path. Timeboost introduces an express lane that can be purchased by sophisticated actors via an auction every minute, with each auction closing 15 seconds before the next round begins.
All bids in the auction are kept private until after the bid submission deadline and the auction winner will pay the same price as the second-highest bid of that round. A bid will only be accepted if it is at or above a minimum bid (the reservePrice). The autonomous auctioneer has the right to change the reservePrice, but it cannot be lower than the minReservePrice, which can only be changed by the ArbitrumDAO. Note, the reservePrice does not represent the expected value of a bid for the express lane, it is just a minimum bid that will be accepted.
This proposal proposes setting the minReservePrice to 0.001 ETH, as the ArbitrumDAO has already signaled strong support for collecting bids in ETH in the temperature check vote on Snapshot. As mentioned above, the ArbitrumDAO has full control over how to spend the proceeds from the Timeboost auction, with 3% of auction proceeds to be set aside for the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which helps fund core Arbitrum development. Governance can change the token used for the auction and the minReservePrice, at any time.
If this proposal passes, the following data sources will eventually made available after Timeboost goes live on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova:
Historical bid data for auction participants, outside of the two highest bids (that are otherwise posted on-chain)
A way to label/identify which transactions were sequenced in the express lane (i.e. Timeboosted transactions).
Finally, the proposed version of Timeboost is compatible with a centralized sequencer. However, the Timeboost policy will also be compatible with proposals for a decentralized sequencer.
Timeboost’s design is the culmination of over a year of research and development by the team at Offchain Labs. While the on-chain implementation will be independently audited by Trail of Bits before the Tally vote, the long term performance of Timeboost can only truly be evaluated with real-world data - data that can help hone and fine-tune Timeboost’s design for the benefit of the ArbitrumDAO.
To that end, although the auctioneer will function autonomously, this AIP proposes granting the current sequencer operator the below rights to make the following adjustments from time to time for a period of two (2) years. The rights described below are expected to only be exercised in circumstances where doing so would enhance Timeboost’s long-term stability, preserve or improve the user experience for those using Timeboost-enabled Arbitrum chains, increase the security posture, resiliency, or stability of the chain, and/or otherwise help increase revenue for the ArbitrumDAO:
Should this vote pass, modifications to other Timeboost parameters, including to values outside the specified ranges and to those not already listed above, but which are otherwise listed in the design specification, will require a constitutional governance vote, in accordance with the ArbitrumDAO Constitution. In cases where the ArbitrumDAO wishes to pause or disable Timeboost, the ArbitrumDAO may use the outcome of a Snapshot vote to do so (since Timeboost has an off-chain component). This special provision allows the ArbitrumDAO to react to market conditions quicker than what a Tally, on-chain vote would allow (~14 days as opposed to ~30 days). The transfer of express lane rights will not be supported by the Arbitrum Nitro node software in the initial launch and may be implemented at a future date via a regular node upgrade. A round's express lane controller, at their choice, can still sign transactions on behalf of others on a per-transaction basis.]
It is important to emphasize that for Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, the DAO-elected Arbitrum Security Council can, at any time, perform either Emergency Actions or Non-Emergency Actions to execute software upgrades, perform routine maintenance, and other parameter adjustments to Timeboost, in each case in accordance with its existing powers. These actions can include, but are not limited solely to, exercising the rights proposed above for the current sequencer operator. More information about the Arbitrum Security Council and their scope of powers can be found in the ArbitrumDAO Constitution.
The full script for executing the Nova Fee Sweep can be found here: Standalone Nova Fee Sweep Proposal #303
This script will be executed following a successful governance vote and transfer Nova transaction fees from the historical L1TimelockAlias to the ChildToParentRouter.
Once transaction fees are received by the ChildToParentRouter, the automated fee collection process will be activated, forwarding fees to the ParentToChildRouter on L1 and eventually to the DAO Treasury on Arbitrum One; complete implementation details for this automated fee routing can be found in the preceding Tally proposal. Please note that Reward Distributor contracts are irrelevant for this particular action as historical fees from the L1TimelockAlias will be transferred directly to the ChildToParentRouter.
The proposal to have Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova adopt Timeboost was posted to the governance forum in June 2024, to gather feedback and facilitate productive discussions. Furthermore, a temperature check vote on Snapshot was passed by the ArbitrumDAO, signalling support for Timeboost and the use of ETH to collect bids. Since then, a third-party, independent audit of the Timeboost auction contract was done by Trail of Bits and all issues were addressed (audit report published publicly here). Testing of Timeboost’s components end-to-end has begun and there are plans to imminently roll out Timeboost to Arbitrum Sepolia (the ArbitrumDAO and the public will be informed when this happens).
Similarly, the proposed Nova Fee Sweep action will forward historical transaction fees to the ArbitrumDAO Treasury, a task left over from the Nova Fee Router Proposal. More specifically, this action applies to 1,885.793 ETH worth of historical Nova transaction fees currently held in the L1TimelockAlias; these fees will be swept into the DAO Treasury with the use of the modernized fee router infrastructure. There will be a separate temperature check on Snapshot for the Nova Fee Sweep action which will be posted next Thursday on January 30th.
This proposal combines both the Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP into a single proposal for an on-chain vote on Tally. If the on-chain vote on Tally passes successfully, Timeboost will be enabled on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova and the Nova Fee Sweep action will be executed. Down the line, the Arbitrum Foundation will update the DAO on a tentative date for the creation of the onchain AIP on this proposal thread.
Here is a compilation of FAQs based on questions received from the community.
If there are questions that are not covered in this FAQ document, please add them as a comment to this forum post, and they will be added to the FAQ document accordingly.
Similarly, a one-pager has been published that recaps a few key principles about Timeboost and summarizes the expectations around Timeboost’s use for chain owners, like the ArbitrumDAO here for delegates to refer to when considering this proposal.
Voting Abstain to primarily draw attention to a concern. Many delegates and advocates view Timeboost primarily as a revenue source and don't focus on the trade-offs. Its implementation must be carefully aligned with other parameters, such as the base fee (which is in the control of the DAO), to avoid negatively impacting builders and users. If not managed properly, these changes could cause builders and users to focus on a growing number of launched and soon to launch chains that aim to offer lower latency and costs while in some ways it could be perceived we are moving in the other direction Value capture should not come at the expense of user and builder experience but instead be utilized to improve it for them as well while growing Arbitrum. I have strong confidence in OCL’s ability to strike this balance, given their close engagement with builders. Ultimately, however, OCL follows the DAO’s decisions, so the DAO must embrace a builder-centric mindset to ensure long-term success.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/113?u=ocandocrypto
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
Voting Abstain to primarily draw attention to a concern. Many delegates and advocates view Timeboost primarily as a revenue source and don't focus on the trade-offs. Its implementation must be carefully aligned with other parameters, such as the base fee (which is in the control of the DAO), to avoid negatively impacting builders and users. If not managed properly, these changes could cause builders and users to focus on a growing number of launched and soon to launch chains that aim to offer lower latency and costs while in some ways it could be perceived we are moving in the other direction Value capture should not come at the expense of user and builder experience but instead be utilized to improve it for them as well while growing Arbitrum. I have strong confidence in OCL’s ability to strike this balance, given their close engagement with builders. Ultimately, however, OCL follows the DAO’s decisions, so the DAO must embrace a builder-centric mindset to ensure long-term success.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/113?u=ocandocrypto
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/112
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-90): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-90
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/111
this is a long time coming and it will bring more revenue to the DAO. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/84?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/83?u=blockful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/82?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/81?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/79
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/77?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/78?u=tane
i would like to vote 'for' here because it benefits not only users but also Artibrum Dao . With the help of Timeboost, the ecosystem will become more efficient and it will also enhance security in a flexible and adaptable way
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/74?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/72
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/28?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/64
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/66?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/63?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/66?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/62?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/59?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/58?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/57?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/7?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/6?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/129?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/15?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/55?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/54?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/42?u=oni
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/41?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/39
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-81: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-81
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-81: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-81
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/38?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/36?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/23?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/33
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/12?u=chamadao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-stable-treasury-endowment-program-2-0/26819/99?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/63?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/29?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/28?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/119?u=larva
I am voting for this proposal because it helps ArbitrumDAO earn more money from transaction fees and makes the system fairer. Timeboost will allow users to bid for faster transactions, and the money collected will go to the DAO. The Nova Fee Sweep will also move old transaction fees into the DAO Treasury, so the funds can be used more easily.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/25?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/23?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/21?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/20?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/18?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/17?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/16?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/15?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/14?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/9?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/8?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/7?u=0xalex
it makes no sense to leave this much ETH, getting stale, in the L1 timelock. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/5?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/112
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-90): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-90
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/111
this is a long time coming and it will bring more revenue to the DAO. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/84?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/83?u=blockful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/82?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/81?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/79
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/77?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/78?u=tane
i would like to vote 'for' here because it benefits not only users but also Artibrum Dao . With the help of Timeboost, the ecosystem will become more efficient and it will also enhance security in a flexible and adaptable way
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/74?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/72
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/28?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/64
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/66?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/63?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-proposal-to-adopt-timeboost-a-new-transaction-ordering-policy/25167/66?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/62?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/59?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/58?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/57?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/7?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/6?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/129?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/15?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/55?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/54?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/42?u=oni
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/41?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/39
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-81: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-81
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-81: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-81
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/38?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/36?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/23?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/33
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/12?u=chamadao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-stable-treasury-endowment-program-2-0/26819/99?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/63?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/29?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/28?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/119?u=larva
I am voting for this proposal because it helps ArbitrumDAO earn more money from transaction fees and makes the system fairer. Timeboost will allow users to bid for faster transactions, and the money collected will go to the DAO. The Nova Fee Sweep will also move old transaction fees into the DAO Treasury, so the funds can be used more easily.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/25?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/23?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/21?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/20?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/18?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/17?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/16?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/15?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/14?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/9?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/8?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/7?u=0xalex
it makes no sense to leave this much ETH, getting stale, in the L1 timelock. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/5?u=paulofonseca
Although it won’t affect the outcome of the vote， I have to express my concerns, to recap from orginal timeboost thread. Pros:
Cons:
Although it won’t affect the outcome of the vote， I have to express my concerns, to recap from orginal timeboost thread. Pros:
Cons:
Previously, both Solana and Arbitrum employed the FIFS (First-In-First-Served) model, but now they’ve chosen completely different paths. Solana, without negatively impacting regular users, grants higher priority to those paying higher priority fees. In contrast, Arbitrum deliberately worsens the experience for all other users by adding a 200ms delay, effectively clearing the way for a single dominant player. Solana has successfully encouraged broader competition, while Arbitrum, frankly speaking, seems to encourage Wintermute’s monopoly.
Although it won’t affect the outcome of the vote， I have to express my concerns, to recap from orginal timeboost thread. Pros:
Cons:
Although it won’t affect the outcome of the vote， I have to express my concerns, to recap from orginal timeboost thread. Pros:
Cons:
Previously, both Solana and Arbitrum employed the FIFS (First-In-First-Served) model, but now they’ve chosen completely different paths. Solana, without negatively impacting regular users, grants higher priority to those paying higher priority fees. In contrast, Arbitrum deliberately worsens the experience for all other users by adding a 200ms delay, effectively clearing the way for a single dominant player. Solana has successfully encouraged broader competition, while Arbitrum, frankly speaking, seems to encourage Wintermute’s monopoly.
great and nice for 2025
great and nice for 2025
Hello! See below for our replies to your questions:
We're aware that this is coming too late for this vote and we don't consider it something that needed to be a blocker for this proposal anyway, but we'd like to keep this topic from getting lost to time in delegate chats.
In this proposal that passed Tally, there's text that reads:
3% of auction proceeds to be set aside for the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which helps fund core Arbitrum development
We're aware that this is coming too late for this vote and we don't consider it something that needed to be a blocker for this proposal anyway, but we'd like to keep this topic from getting lost to time in delegate chats.
In this proposal that passed Tally, there's text that reads:
3% of auction proceeds to be set aside for the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which helps fund core Arbitrum development
In August of last year, there was a similar line included in the vote to change the Arbitrum Expansion Program
In return, the new Orbit chain is expected to share 10% of their chain’s profit back to the wider Arbitrum ecosystem. This includes 8% for the ArbitrumDAO and 2% for a new Arbitrum Developer Guild.
When asked about the Arbitrum Developer Guild then, we were told that there wasn't much to share but the format was being worked on.
When @JoJo asked about this again recently and suggested an update in a GRC call, we were again given very little information.
At the same time, we can see that the [Orbit] Developer Guild is indeed collecting (a negligible amount) of money, and presumably will have more income when auctions begin.
graph from https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/arbitrum-dao-financials
Like we mentioned at this beginning of this post and in our rationale for voting on the Expansion Program, we don't believe that this is something big enough to vote against either of these proposals for, but we do find it odd that we're creating official fee structures that are already and will continue to fund this organization we don't know much about. We also don't believe this is particularly urgent or should be the first priority of the DAO as the income is still so small, but we'd like to see more on this before we get too far out into the future and the amount of money being diverted into the Guild does become significant.
Hey - these are great points and we welcome and acknowledge your feedback. In general, we want to point out that all known approaches to addressing the negative externalities of MEV and MEV-associated spam, including doing nothing, come with trade-offs. That is to say: even Timeboost comes with risks that the community would benefit from addressing and mitigating as you are attempting to do now. Here are our responses:
Voting has ended!
===============
[[CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9/proposal/2544994695910523959)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 243.84M of 212.35M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 213.00M (87.3%) |
| **Against** | | 44.48k (0.0%) |
| **Abstain** | | 30.85M (12.6%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Hello! See below for our replies to your questions:
We're aware that this is coming too late for this vote and we don't consider it something that needed to be a blocker for this proposal anyway, but we'd like to keep this topic from getting lost to time in delegate chats.
In this proposal that passed Tally, there's text that reads:
3% of auction proceeds to be set aside for the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which helps fund core Arbitrum development
We're aware that this is coming too late for this vote and we don't consider it something that needed to be a blocker for this proposal anyway, but we'd like to keep this topic from getting lost to time in delegate chats.
In this proposal that passed Tally, there's text that reads:
3% of auction proceeds to be set aside for the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which helps fund core Arbitrum development
In August of last year, there was a similar line included in the vote to change the Arbitrum Expansion Program
In return, the new Orbit chain is expected to share 10% of their chain’s profit back to the wider Arbitrum ecosystem. This includes 8% for the ArbitrumDAO and 2% for a new Arbitrum Developer Guild.
When asked about the Arbitrum Developer Guild then, we were told that there wasn't much to share but the format was being worked on.
When @JoJo asked about this again recently and suggested an update in a GRC call, we were again given very little information.
At the same time, we can see that the [Orbit] Developer Guild is indeed collecting (a negligible amount) of money, and presumably will have more income when auctions begin.
graph from https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/arbitrum-dao-financials
Like we mentioned at this beginning of this post and in our rationale for voting on the Expansion Program, we don't believe that this is something big enough to vote against either of these proposals for, but we do find it odd that we're creating official fee structures that are already and will continue to fund this organization we don't know much about. We also don't believe this is particularly urgent or should be the first priority of the DAO as the income is still so small, but we'd like to see more on this before we get too far out into the future and the amount of money being diverted into the Guild does become significant.
Hey - these are great points and we welcome and acknowledge your feedback. In general, we want to point out that all known approaches to addressing the negative externalities of MEV and MEV-associated spam, including doing nothing, come with trade-offs. That is to say: even Timeboost comes with risks that the community would benefit from addressing and mitigating as you are attempting to do now. Here are our responses:
Voting has ended!
===============
[[CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9/proposal/2544994695910523959)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 243.84M of 212.35M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 213.00M (87.3%) |
| **Against** | | 44.48k (0.0%) |
| **Abstain** | | 30.85M (12.6%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Hey - these are great points and we welcome and acknowledge your feedback. In general, we want to point out that all known approaches to addressing the negative externalities of MEV and MEV-associated spam, including doing nothing, come with trade-offs. That is to say: even Timeboost comes with risks that the community would benefit from addressing and mitigating as you are attempting to do now. Here are our responses:
We look forward to working with the ArbitrumDAO on making positive, net-beneficial contributions to Arbitrum technology and Arbitrum One and Nova, including, but not limited to, discussions about the topics you’ve raised here - thank you again!
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9/proposal/2544994695910523959)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We have reached consensus on the "AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep" proposal, supporting its implementation within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Key Points of Support:
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We have reached consensus on the "AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep" proposal, supporting its implementation within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Key Points of Support:
Future Directions:
Economic Growth Strategies:
We are considering multiple strategies for economic growth, including:
Request for ARDC Research:
We propose that the ARDC conduct research on the following topics to better understand the implications of Timeboost and similar mechanisms:
We look forward to engaging with the community and exploring ways to optimize Timeboost's benefits for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Hey - these are great points and we welcome and acknowledge your feedback. In general, we want to point out that all known approaches to addressing the negative externalities of MEV and MEV-associated spam, including doing nothing, come with trade-offs. That is to say: even Timeboost comes with risks that the community would benefit from addressing and mitigating as you are attempting to do now. Here are our responses:
We look forward to working with the ArbitrumDAO on making positive, net-beneficial contributions to Arbitrum technology and Arbitrum One and Nova, including, but not limited to, discussions about the topics you’ve raised here - thank you again!
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0xf07DeD9dC292157749B6Fd268E37DF6EA38395B9/proposal/2544994695910523959)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We have reached consensus on the "AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep" proposal, supporting its implementation within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Key Points of Support:
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We have reached consensus on the "AIP: Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep" proposal, supporting its implementation within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Key Points of Support:
Future Directions:
Economic Growth Strategies:
We are considering multiple strategies for economic growth, including:
Request for ARDC Research:
We propose that the ARDC conduct research on the following topics to better understand the implications of Timeboost and similar mechanisms:
We look forward to engaging with the community and exploring ways to optimize Timeboost's benefits for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Hey everyone, quick update - the auction contracts for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost. Should this vote be passed, within 5 business days, the sequencer operator will provision and enable the autonomous auctioneer to begin receiving bids and upgrade the sequencer to begin honoring the time-advantage to a given round's express lane controller (whenever there is one). If this vote does not pass, the deployed auction contracts will simply lie dormant and remain unused.
The reason why the auction contracts are deployed is because it is better to do it sooner rather than later when things are more time sensitive, and acts as a practice run so we have time to check through everything a few times. We can always deploy it again if we find an error or misconfiguration - the contracts don’t have to be used if the vote doesn’t pass.
Hey everyone, quick update - the auction contracts for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost. Should this vote be passed, within 5 business days, the sequencer operator will provision and enable the autonomous auctioneer to begin receiving bids and upgrade the sequencer to begin honoring the time-advantage to a given round's express lane controller (whenever there is one). If this vote does not pass, the deployed auction contracts will simply lie dormant and remain unused.
The reason why the auction contracts are deployed is because it is better to do it sooner rather than later when things are more time sensitive, and acts as a practice run so we have time to check through everything a few times. We can always deploy it again if we find an error or misconfiguration - the contracts don’t have to be used if the vote doesn’t pass.
Here are the contracts that are already deployed:
ProxyAdmin: 0x5fcb496a31b7AE91e7c9078Ec662bd7A55cd3079 (https://arbiscan.io/address/0x5fcb496a31b7ae91e7c9078ec662bd7a55cd3079#readProxyContract)
ProxyAdmin: 0xa5aBADAF73DFcf5261C7f55420418736707Dc0db (https://nova.arbiscan.io/address/0xa5abadaf73dfcf5261c7f55420418736707dc0db#code)
We took it upon ourselves to handle the Nova fee sweep proposal (implementation) and decided to bundle these two together to save time and effort for DAO delegates so that there is only a single proposal that needs to be voted on, instead of two separate ones - making the process more efficient and streamlined. Additionally, we did explicitly mention that there was an intent to bundle these 2 actions under one onchain constitutional AIP on this forum post, and got 2 separate approvals (nova fee sweep, timeboost) for each action at the temperature check phase previously.
There is a delicate balance between efficiency but also topic hygiene, particularly for constitutional proposals which have a high quorum. Thank you again for your feedback.
Voting has started for this proposal! Vote on Tally: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
We agree. We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem. The goal for doing so is to provide the ArbitrumDAO with objective, transparent insights so that the ArbitrumDAO can make informed decisions on how to fine-tune Timeboost to achieve the ArbitrumDAO’s goals. Furthermore, since the data will be public or on-chain, we welcome community members to contribute ideas and tooling in service of this mission.
Hey everyone, quick update - the auction contracts for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost. Should this vote be passed, within 5 business days, the sequencer operator will provision and enable the autonomous auctioneer to begin receiving bids and upgrade the sequencer to begin honoring the time-advantage to a given round's express lane controller (whenever there is one). If this vote does not pass, the deployed auction contracts will simply lie dormant and remain unused.
The reason why the auction contracts are deployed is because it is better to do it sooner rather than later when things are more time sensitive, and acts as a practice run so we have time to check through everything a few times. We can always deploy it again if we find an error or misconfiguration - the contracts don’t have to be used if the vote doesn’t pass.
Hey everyone, quick update - the auction contracts for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost. Should this vote be passed, within 5 business days, the sequencer operator will provision and enable the autonomous auctioneer to begin receiving bids and upgrade the sequencer to begin honoring the time-advantage to a given round's express lane controller (whenever there is one). If this vote does not pass, the deployed auction contracts will simply lie dormant and remain unused.
The reason why the auction contracts are deployed is because it is better to do it sooner rather than later when things are more time sensitive, and acts as a practice run so we have time to check through everything a few times. We can always deploy it again if we find an error or misconfiguration - the contracts don’t have to be used if the vote doesn’t pass.
Here are the contracts that are already deployed:
ProxyAdmin: 0x5fcb496a31b7AE91e7c9078Ec662bd7A55cd3079 (https://arbiscan.io/address/0x5fcb496a31b7ae91e7c9078ec662bd7a55cd3079#readProxyContract)
ProxyAdmin: 0xa5aBADAF73DFcf5261C7f55420418736707Dc0db (https://nova.arbiscan.io/address/0xa5abadaf73dfcf5261c7f55420418736707dc0db#code)
We took it upon ourselves to handle the Nova fee sweep proposal (implementation) and decided to bundle these two together to save time and effort for DAO delegates so that there is only a single proposal that needs to be voted on, instead of two separate ones - making the process more efficient and streamlined. Additionally, we did explicitly mention that there was an intent to bundle these 2 actions under one onchain constitutional AIP on this forum post, and got 2 separate approvals (nova fee sweep, timeboost) for each action at the temperature check phase previously.
There is a delicate balance between efficiency but also topic hygiene, particularly for constitutional proposals which have a high quorum. Thank you again for your feedback.
Voting has started for this proposal! Vote on Tally: [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
We agree. We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem. The goal for doing so is to provide the ArbitrumDAO with objective, transparent insights so that the ArbitrumDAO can make informed decisions on how to fine-tune Timeboost to achieve the ArbitrumDAO’s goals. Furthermore, since the data will be public or on-chain, we welcome community members to contribute ideas and tooling in service of this mission.
We're maintaining our previous position and voting FOR the Timeboost and Nova Fee Sweep bundle on Tally. Almost hit quorum - less than 4m left to go!
My stance has not changed, I voted FOR on Snapshot (with collect bids in ETH option) and voted FOR on Tally. Timeboost addresses MEV-related challenges without impacting users and creates another revenue stream for the DAO. The Blockworks estimated, “...additional $19m to $95m increase in annual DAO revenue…” is too compelling to ignore. Lower infrastructure burden in current market conditions is also a plus. After reviewing concerns raised by other delegates, I concluded that the benefits of Timeboost outweigh the drawbacks.
nope... still available to vote for 23 more hours...
@Arbitrum @offchainlabs are these 3% currently being set aside yet? or no? @Entropy are the Timeboost fees shown here deducting these 3% already or not? from the chart description I assume not, but would love to get that clarified.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on tally, maintaining my previous votes for Timeboost and Nova Fee Sweep proposals
I'm voting FOR this proposal on tally, maintaining my previous votes for Timeboost and Nova Fee Sweep proposals
Thank you very much for the proposal and for all the work in developing Time Boost. I believe MEV capture is beneficial as long as it doesn’t affect the user experience or their economic interests, and it provides the DAO with an additional source of revenue beyond the usual fees.
That said, MEV capture is still a topic whose legal implications remain somewhat unclear. There is no clear regulatory outlook, nor a solid stance from various jurisdictions on this matter.
I expect continuous monitoring of the implementation of Time Boost and its impact on the chain and protocol performance.
In particular, I want to echo the concerns raised by @Camelot. If there is a risk that the MEV captured by this new transaction auction model could impact users (and even harm them), there could be implications for performance, network trust, and legal considerations.
Understanding that the MEV being captured will come from arbitrage opportunities, it is still very important to maintain monitoring to analyze any unforeseen consequences.
That's why I'm also tagging the ARDC (cc @tamara @Atomist @Frisson @Juanrah) and kindly asking them :) to coordinate with OCL and the Foundation to assess whether it makes sense to assign the available providers to conduct thorough monitoring and reporting on the impact of Time Boost during the first few months (at least for the duration of the current ARDC mandate)
Voting FOR
The DD on this has been done properly and it's worthwhile to test
I would like to remind everyone that due to the fact that this Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep is a Constitutional AIP, which means the quorum is 5% - about 210 million, which is a lot even taking into account the extra week of voting. We only had 3 proposals that exceeded 210 million votes, so don’t forget to vote!
In turn, I also voted FOR. I will simply summarize the theses that I consider important:
I would like to remind everyone that due to the fact that this Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep is a Constitutional AIP, which means the quorum is 5% - about 210 million, which is a lot even taking into account the extra week of voting. We only had 3 proposals that exceeded 210 million votes, so don’t forget to vote!
In turn, I also voted FOR. I will simply summarize the theses that I consider important:
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We confirmed that the onchain action is related to the Nova fee sweep as instructed and the deployment of the proxy contract and ExpressLaneAuction implementation and continue to support the experimental initiative.
As a newly active delegate, I’ll preface this response by saying much of my response and questioning is for my own education, rather than critique:
I support added revenue for the DAO, but is there any notion of the expected amount of revenue to be generated? EDIT: @ananth shared the following doc detailing revenue projections noted in a different forum thread last year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pXp1r7nR0YCbVlTX7HeyDgyfxMsplbpOW2xt1rxOoE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.79nw6hr9cnid
Does this system, theoretically and if used substantially, run the risk of taking precedence over all non-express transactions thereby forcing all txs to be handled within the express lane and creating a bidding war for processing / high effective tx fee?
I echo some of the other delegates in advocating for the separation of completely disparate proposal actions in the future. Nova fee sweep seems far more simple and generally agreeable. To package a fairly straightforward, non-experimental, and broadly agreed upon action with an experimental, complex, chain-level alternation seems to only muddy things.
Contrary to some general delegate commentary, I do generally support the delay of non-express lane transactions. While it doubles tx time, I don’t believe 200ms is a sum of time appreciable to the average retail user. And, it is certainly not a driving factor in a retail user's choice of chain. Personally, I believe transaction speed between chains being a marketable advantage is converging on zero as all chains approach speeds seemingly instantaneous to the average user. At a certain point, being milliseconds faster than the next chain simply doesn’t matter.
wanna bet that this onchain vote period doesn't end in 24 hours? =)
We voted FOR Mainly for resource optimization, but in addition, this proposal combines two key actions to improve Arbitrum:
Timeboost reduces harmful MEV.
We voted FOR Mainly for resource optimization, but in addition, this proposal combines two key actions to improve Arbitrum:
Timeboost reduces harmful MEV.
In addition the Nova Fee Sweep recovers 1,885 ETH for the Treasury. Transfers historical funds stuck in an obsolete contract to the Treasury from the DAO using secure, audited infrastructure.
voting FOR on the current onchain vote because this is a long time coming and it will bring more revenue to the DAO.
We're voting FOR this proposal.
Bundling Timeboost and the Nova Fee Sweep makes a lot of sense. Timeboost feels like a smart step forward in dealing with MEV while still protecting users and keeping things stable. We're also aligned with sending the auction proceeds back to the DAO—it’s a sustainable approach.
We're voting FOR this proposal.
Bundling Timeboost and the Nova Fee Sweep makes a lot of sense. Timeboost feels like a smart step forward in dealing with MEV while still protecting users and keeping things stable. We're also aligned with sending the auction proceeds back to the DAO—it’s a sustainable approach.
On the Nova Fee Sweep side, moving those historical fees to the Treasury is long overdue and helps clean things up.
Excited to see how this plays out in practice.
We're maintaining our previous position and voting FOR the Timeboost and Nova Fee Sweep bundle on Tally. Almost hit quorum - less than 4m left to go!
My stance has not changed, I voted FOR on Snapshot (with collect bids in ETH option) and voted FOR on Tally. Timeboost addresses MEV-related challenges without impacting users and creates another revenue stream for the DAO. The Blockworks estimated, “...additional $19m to $95m increase in annual DAO revenue…” is too compelling to ignore. Lower infrastructure burden in current market conditions is also a plus. After reviewing concerns raised by other delegates, I concluded that the benefits of Timeboost outweigh the drawbacks.
nope... still available to vote for 23 more hours...
@Arbitrum @offchainlabs are these 3% currently being set aside yet? or no? @Entropy are the Timeboost fees shown here deducting these 3% already or not? from the chart description I assume not, but would love to get that clarified.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on tally, maintaining my previous votes for Timeboost and Nova Fee Sweep proposals
I'm voting FOR this proposal on tally, maintaining my previous votes for Timeboost and Nova Fee Sweep proposals
Thank you very much for the proposal and for all the work in developing Time Boost. I believe MEV capture is beneficial as long as it doesn’t affect the user experience or their economic interests, and it provides the DAO with an additional source of revenue beyond the usual fees.
That said, MEV capture is still a topic whose legal implications remain somewhat unclear. There is no clear regulatory outlook, nor a solid stance from various jurisdictions on this matter.
I expect continuous monitoring of the implementation of Time Boost and its impact on the chain and protocol performance.
In particular, I want to echo the concerns raised by @Camelot. If there is a risk that the MEV captured by this new transaction auction model could impact users (and even harm them), there could be implications for performance, network trust, and legal considerations.
Understanding that the MEV being captured will come from arbitrage opportunities, it is still very important to maintain monitoring to analyze any unforeseen consequences.
That's why I'm also tagging the ARDC (cc @tamara @Atomist @Frisson @Juanrah) and kindly asking them :) to coordinate with OCL and the Foundation to assess whether it makes sense to assign the available providers to conduct thorough monitoring and reporting on the impact of Time Boost during the first few months (at least for the duration of the current ARDC mandate)
Voting FOR
The DD on this has been done properly and it's worthwhile to test
I would like to remind everyone that due to the fact that this Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep is a Constitutional AIP, which means the quorum is 5% - about 210 million, which is a lot even taking into account the extra week of voting. We only had 3 proposals that exceeded 210 million votes, so don’t forget to vote!
In turn, I also voted FOR. I will simply summarize the theses that I consider important:
I would like to remind everyone that due to the fact that this Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep is a Constitutional AIP, which means the quorum is 5% - about 210 million, which is a lot even taking into account the extra week of voting. We only had 3 proposals that exceeded 210 million votes, so don’t forget to vote!
In turn, I also voted FOR. I will simply summarize the theses that I consider important:
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We confirmed that the onchain action is related to the Nova fee sweep as instructed and the deployment of the proxy contract and ExpressLaneAuction implementation and continue to support the experimental initiative.
As a newly active delegate, I’ll preface this response by saying much of my response and questioning is for my own education, rather than critique:
I support added revenue for the DAO, but is there any notion of the expected amount of revenue to be generated? EDIT: @ananth shared the following doc detailing revenue projections noted in a different forum thread last year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pXp1r7nR0YCbVlTX7HeyDgyfxMsplbpOW2xt1rxOoE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.79nw6hr9cnid
Does this system, theoretically and if used substantially, run the risk of taking precedence over all non-express transactions thereby forcing all txs to be handled within the express lane and creating a bidding war for processing / high effective tx fee?
I echo some of the other delegates in advocating for the separation of completely disparate proposal actions in the future. Nova fee sweep seems far more simple and generally agreeable. To package a fairly straightforward, non-experimental, and broadly agreed upon action with an experimental, complex, chain-level alternation seems to only muddy things.
Contrary to some general delegate commentary, I do generally support the delay of non-express lane transactions. While it doubles tx time, I don’t believe 200ms is a sum of time appreciable to the average retail user. And, it is certainly not a driving factor in a retail user's choice of chain. Personally, I believe transaction speed between chains being a marketable advantage is converging on zero as all chains approach speeds seemingly instantaneous to the average user. At a certain point, being milliseconds faster than the next chain simply doesn’t matter.
wanna bet that this onchain vote period doesn't end in 24 hours? =)
We voted FOR Mainly for resource optimization, but in addition, this proposal combines two key actions to improve Arbitrum:
Timeboost reduces harmful MEV.
We voted FOR Mainly for resource optimization, but in addition, this proposal combines two key actions to improve Arbitrum:
Timeboost reduces harmful MEV.
In addition the Nova Fee Sweep recovers 1,885 ETH for the Treasury. Transfers historical funds stuck in an obsolete contract to the Treasury from the DAO using secure, audited infrastructure.
voting FOR on the current onchain vote because this is a long time coming and it will bring more revenue to the DAO.
We're voting FOR this proposal.
Bundling Timeboost and the Nova Fee Sweep makes a lot of sense. Timeboost feels like a smart step forward in dealing with MEV while still protecting users and keeping things stable. We're also aligned with sending the auction proceeds back to the DAO—it’s a sustainable approach.
We're voting FOR this proposal.
Bundling Timeboost and the Nova Fee Sweep makes a lot of sense. Timeboost feels like a smart step forward in dealing with MEV while still protecting users and keeping things stable. We're also aligned with sending the auction proceeds back to the DAO—it’s a sustainable approach.
On the Nova Fee Sweep side, moving those historical fees to the Treasury is long overdue and helps clean things up.
Excited to see how this plays out in practice.
As a newly active delegate, I’ll preface this response by saying much of my response and questioning is for my own education, rather than critique:
I support added revenue for the DAO, but is there any notion of the expected amount of revenue to be generated? EDIT: @ananth shared the following doc detailing revenue projections noted in a different forum thread last year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pXp1r7nR0YCbVlTX7HeyDgyfxMsplbpOW2xt1rxOoE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.79nw6hr9cnid
Does this system, theoretically and if used substantially, run the risk of taking precedence over all non-express transactions thereby forcing all txs to be handled within the express lane and creating a bidding war for processing / high effective tx fee?
I echo some of the other delegates in advocating for the separation of completely disparate proposal actions in the future. Nova fee sweep seems far more simple and generally agreeable. To package a fairly straightforward, non-experimental, and broadly agreed upon action with an experimental, complex, chain-level alternation seems to only muddy things.
Contrary to some general delegate commentary, I do generally support the delay of non-express lane transactions. While it doubles tx time, I don’t believe 200ms is a sum of time appreciable to the average retail user. And, it is certainly not a driving factor in a retail user's choice of chain. Personally, I believe transaction speed between chains being a marketable advantage is converging on zero as all chains approach speeds seemingly instantaneous to the average user. At a certain point, being milliseconds faster than the next chain simply doesn’t matter.
This being said, I will vote FOR this proposal in support of OCL, added revenue for the DAO, and lack of strong concern to justify not experimenting with this solution.
This 2 for one special is a no brainer... but we need to get to quorum, it's going to be a tough one so make sure you vote! Wee need every ARB we can get!
I'm voting FOR this proposal
This 2 for one special is a no brainer... but we need to get to quorum, it's going to be a tough one so make sure you vote! Wee need every ARB we can get!
I'm voting FOR this proposal
I love Timeboost, very innovative. It is a pretty epic contribution to the blockchain space and i’m honored to be able to vote to execute on it. It seems like the network is ready for it, kudos for taking our time here.
Not much to add on this on, let's move the 1,885 ETH to where it belongs. Clean, efficient, and good. Let’s ship it.
I’m voting FOR this proposal on tally. I dont have anything new to add, lets do it!
I voted FOR on Tally. Timeboost is a great development for Arbitrum, and I am excited to see how it unfolds.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, this is a clear and straightforward proposal that supports both the Nova Fee Sweep and the Timeboost AIP, making execution more efficient.
The update from the @Arbitrum team about the early deployment of auction contracts on both Arbitrum One and Nova shows good foresight and readiness for the smooth implementation once the vote passes.
We’re also eager to see how builders engage with Timeboost and the kind of revenue it can bring to the DAO over time.
I voted for this proposal at the temp check stage. I’m in favor of redirecting MEV revenue to the DAO (and hopefully eventually token holders). I agree with including Nova as a fee source.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally
Camelot will ABSTAIN from this vote. While Camelot wants to support innovation, we're also extremely worried about the lack of evaluation regarding the consequences of these fundamental changes we are introducing to the chain. We would like to highlight several points that we expect to see as follow-ups to this proposal.
Camelot will ABSTAIN from this vote. While Camelot wants to support innovation, we're also extremely worried about the lack of evaluation regarding the consequences of these fundamental changes we are introducing to the chain. We would like to highlight several points that we expect to see as follow-ups to this proposal.
We believe that crypto is an inherently experimental industry built on trial and error, but we don't think these experiments should come at the potential expense of the entire chain and ecosystem. While we are fully confident in the ability of OCL, we should not minimize or downplay a scenario that carries tail risks, especially because we have had nowhere near enough precautionary analysis or guardrails in place.
To name one: the sequencer operator will have the ability for two years to adjust parameters, pause/disable the system, and, in general, have control over it to "enhance Timeboost's long-term stability, preserve or improve the user experience for those using Timeboost-enabled Arbitrum chains, increase the security posture, resiliency, or stability of the chain, and/or otherwise help increase revenue for the ArbitrumDAO." We understand and agree with the general approach and the need for flexibility, but at the same time, we have no clear definition of what success or failure would look like. This is one of the questions we, as a DAO, should get an answer to.
We also have concerns regarding Timeboost's potential impact on protocols. As we mentioned from the very beginning, the priority seems to be increasing revenue for the DAO without either:
This approach is worsened by the fact that transitioning from an FCFS model to an express lane purchasable via auction is very close to what we could call value extraction. This creates an environment where Arbitrum non-express lane users will potentially be disadvantaged when providing liquidity, executing swaps, and trading derivatives. To put it more bluntly, the captured value will directly come from current users in Arbitrum and will most impact DeFi protocols like DEXs and perps.
To recap, so far, the setup of Timeboost:
We also want to list some metrics we believe are worth monitoring for Timeboost at 30, 90, and 180 days post-activation to allow for better evaluation. We think these metrics and any findings should be reported to the DAO for public discussion to assess whether Timeboost has not only delivered the expected revenue benefits but also has not disrupted protocols operating on the chain:
These metrics are only suggestions and, of course, not exhaustive, and we think the proposer should put forward their own metrics . It comes down, as mentioned, to defining what success and failure look like, and data measurement is key to this. Recognizing the complexity of this task and the potential challenges in data availability, we suggest that OCL and ARDC collaborate on the analysis.
Timeboost represents one of the most significant fundamental changes in Arbitrum to date, and despite our criticism, we believe it could be a major shift for the ecosystem. Knowing that the proposal will likely pass regardless of our vote, our goal is to highlight the potential risks and what should be effectively monitored moving forward, as well as to push for coordination between OCL and ARDC on this task. Above all, we would like to hear from the proposer what success and failure look like so that we will know when it is time for the DAO to act and in what way.
We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem.
We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem.
Voted FOR.
Excited for Timeboost to go live, and looking forward to seeing data on how the market responds to this new policy, how builders can create innovation on top of it, and what revenue the DAO generates.
In support of the Nova Fee sweep and to bring the ETH into our Treasury.
Onwards!
We have voted in favor on Tally, as this is a straightforward proposal and we have nothing further to add.
Voted in the same way in Tally than in the snapshot vote..here is my rationale. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/23?u=gabriel
Voted FOR on Tally: this proposal is a good step for ArbitrumDAO. I think it helps collect more money and improve the system.
Voted For on Tally proposal for the same reasons as explained in my Snapshot comment.
I reiterate my support by casting the same vote on Tally as I did on Snapshot, you can find the rationale here.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi will follow the logic outlined in the rationale presented on February 1st for the Snapshot proposal:
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi will follow the logic outlined in the rationale presented on February 1st for the Snapshot proposal:
For this reason, the auction will be turned on and we highly encourage anyone who wants to support this proposal to try out our community auction. The instant buy will be set relatively high (1% from the financial part: 1885 ETH * 1% ≈ 18.85 ETH) in order to prevent a potential “troll” from purchasing the “against” option - we consider it very unlikely that either option will be purchased via instant buy.
With Timeboost also being adopted with this proposal, we see no reason to change the price for this proposal.
Voted in favor of this proposal (Tally ) the same reason I voted on Snapshot "it introduces an innovative mechanism that not only optimizes the distribution of funds collected through Nova fees but also incentivizes active community participation by rewarding users who contribute to the ecosystem".
We’re casting the same vote on Tally for this proposal as at the Snapshot stage, as our rationale for the first vote remains unchanged.
Sticking with my decision from the snapshot vote. Timeboost can bring extra revenue for the DAO instead of just relying on transaction fees.
Also, sweeping 1,885.793 ETH into the treasury gives ArbitrumDAO more funds to grow the ecosystem or support new initiatives 🙂
Voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons I voted FOR on Snapshot.
As a newly active delegate, I’ll preface this response by saying much of my response and questioning is for my own education, rather than critique:
I support added revenue for the DAO, but is there any notion of the expected amount of revenue to be generated? EDIT: @ananth shared the following doc detailing revenue projections noted in a different forum thread last year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pXp1r7nR0YCbVlTX7HeyDgyfxMsplbpOW2xt1rxOoE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.79nw6hr9cnid
Does this system, theoretically and if used substantially, run the risk of taking precedence over all non-express transactions thereby forcing all txs to be handled within the express lane and creating a bidding war for processing / high effective tx fee?
I echo some of the other delegates in advocating for the separation of completely disparate proposal actions in the future. Nova fee sweep seems far more simple and generally agreeable. To package a fairly straightforward, non-experimental, and broadly agreed upon action with an experimental, complex, chain-level alternation seems to only muddy things.
Contrary to some general delegate commentary, I do generally support the delay of non-express lane transactions. While it doubles tx time, I don’t believe 200ms is a sum of time appreciable to the average retail user. And, it is certainly not a driving factor in a retail user's choice of chain. Personally, I believe transaction speed between chains being a marketable advantage is converging on zero as all chains approach speeds seemingly instantaneous to the average user. At a certain point, being milliseconds faster than the next chain simply doesn’t matter.
This being said, I will vote FOR this proposal in support of OCL, added revenue for the DAO, and lack of strong concern to justify not experimenting with this solution.
This 2 for one special is a no brainer... but we need to get to quorum, it's going to be a tough one so make sure you vote! Wee need every ARB we can get!
I'm voting FOR this proposal
This 2 for one special is a no brainer... but we need to get to quorum, it's going to be a tough one so make sure you vote! Wee need every ARB we can get!
I'm voting FOR this proposal
I love Timeboost, very innovative. It is a pretty epic contribution to the blockchain space and i’m honored to be able to vote to execute on it. It seems like the network is ready for it, kudos for taking our time here.
Not much to add on this on, let's move the 1,885 ETH to where it belongs. Clean, efficient, and good. Let’s ship it.
I’m voting FOR this proposal on tally. I dont have anything new to add, lets do it!
I voted FOR on Tally. Timeboost is a great development for Arbitrum, and I am excited to see how it unfolds.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, this is a clear and straightforward proposal that supports both the Nova Fee Sweep and the Timeboost AIP, making execution more efficient.
The update from the @Arbitrum team about the early deployment of auction contracts on both Arbitrum One and Nova shows good foresight and readiness for the smooth implementation once the vote passes.
We’re also eager to see how builders engage with Timeboost and the kind of revenue it can bring to the DAO over time.
I voted for this proposal at the temp check stage. I’m in favor of redirecting MEV revenue to the DAO (and hopefully eventually token holders). I agree with including Nova as a fee source.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally
Camelot will ABSTAIN from this vote. While Camelot wants to support innovation, we're also extremely worried about the lack of evaluation regarding the consequences of these fundamental changes we are introducing to the chain. We would like to highlight several points that we expect to see as follow-ups to this proposal.
Camelot will ABSTAIN from this vote. While Camelot wants to support innovation, we're also extremely worried about the lack of evaluation regarding the consequences of these fundamental changes we are introducing to the chain. We would like to highlight several points that we expect to see as follow-ups to this proposal.
We believe that crypto is an inherently experimental industry built on trial and error, but we don't think these experiments should come at the potential expense of the entire chain and ecosystem. While we are fully confident in the ability of OCL, we should not minimize or downplay a scenario that carries tail risks, especially because we have had nowhere near enough precautionary analysis or guardrails in place.
To name one: the sequencer operator will have the ability for two years to adjust parameters, pause/disable the system, and, in general, have control over it to "enhance Timeboost's long-term stability, preserve or improve the user experience for those using Timeboost-enabled Arbitrum chains, increase the security posture, resiliency, or stability of the chain, and/or otherwise help increase revenue for the ArbitrumDAO." We understand and agree with the general approach and the need for flexibility, but at the same time, we have no clear definition of what success or failure would look like. This is one of the questions we, as a DAO, should get an answer to.
We also have concerns regarding Timeboost's potential impact on protocols. As we mentioned from the very beginning, the priority seems to be increasing revenue for the DAO without either:
This approach is worsened by the fact that transitioning from an FCFS model to an express lane purchasable via auction is very close to what we could call value extraction. This creates an environment where Arbitrum non-express lane users will potentially be disadvantaged when providing liquidity, executing swaps, and trading derivatives. To put it more bluntly, the captured value will directly come from current users in Arbitrum and will most impact DeFi protocols like DEXs and perps.
To recap, so far, the setup of Timeboost:
We also want to list some metrics we believe are worth monitoring for Timeboost at 30, 90, and 180 days post-activation to allow for better evaluation. We think these metrics and any findings should be reported to the DAO for public discussion to assess whether Timeboost has not only delivered the expected revenue benefits but also has not disrupted protocols operating on the chain:
These metrics are only suggestions and, of course, not exhaustive, and we think the proposer should put forward their own metrics . It comes down, as mentioned, to defining what success and failure look like, and data measurement is key to this. Recognizing the complexity of this task and the potential challenges in data availability, we suggest that OCL and ARDC collaborate on the analysis.
Timeboost represents one of the most significant fundamental changes in Arbitrum to date, and despite our criticism, we believe it could be a major shift for the ecosystem. Knowing that the proposal will likely pass regardless of our vote, our goal is to highlight the potential risks and what should be effectively monitored moving forward, as well as to push for coordination between OCL and ARDC on this task. Above all, we would like to hear from the proposer what success and failure look like so that we will know when it is time for the DAO to act and in what way.
We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem.
We are working with Offchain Labs and independent third-party teams to produce open-source, transparent analytics for Timeboost and its impact on the Arbitrum One and Nova ecosystem.
Voted FOR.
Excited for Timeboost to go live, and looking forward to seeing data on how the market responds to this new policy, how builders can create innovation on top of it, and what revenue the DAO generates.
In support of the Nova Fee sweep and to bring the ETH into our Treasury.
Onwards!
We have voted in favor on Tally, as this is a straightforward proposal and we have nothing further to add.
Voted in the same way in Tally than in the snapshot vote..here is my rationale. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-timeboost-nova-fee-sweep/28247/23?u=gabriel
Voted FOR on Tally: this proposal is a good step for ArbitrumDAO. I think it helps collect more money and improve the system.
Voted For on Tally proposal for the same reasons as explained in my Snapshot comment.
I reiterate my support by casting the same vote on Tally as I did on Snapshot, you can find the rationale here.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi will follow the logic outlined in the rationale presented on February 1st for the Snapshot proposal:
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi will follow the logic outlined in the rationale presented on February 1st for the Snapshot proposal:
For this reason, the auction will be turned on and we highly encourage anyone who wants to support this proposal to try out our community auction. The instant buy will be set relatively high (1% from the financial part: 1885 ETH * 1% ≈ 18.85 ETH) in order to prevent a potential “troll” from purchasing the “against” option - we consider it very unlikely that either option will be purchased via instant buy.
With Timeboost also being adopted with this proposal, we see no reason to change the price for this proposal.
Voted in favor of this proposal (Tally ) the same reason I voted on Snapshot "it introduces an innovative mechanism that not only optimizes the distribution of funds collected through Nova fees but also incentivizes active community participation by rewarding users who contribute to the ecosystem".
We’re casting the same vote on Tally for this proposal as at the Snapshot stage, as our rationale for the first vote remains unchanged.
Sticking with my decision from the snapshot vote. Timeboost can bring extra revenue for the DAO instead of just relying on transaction fees.
Also, sweeping 1,885.793 ETH into the treasury gives ArbitrumDAO more funds to grow the ecosystem or support new initiatives 🙂
Voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons I voted FOR on Snapshot.
I voted for in snapshot.
Once again, I am voting FOR on Tally. Sentiment is the same as when I voted on Snapshot, this a no brainer that generally improves the network and adds extra treasury funds. Not much else to add.
Is there a timeline or updates on when the proposal will go to Tally?
The remaining issues should be resolved as soon as possible. FOR .....
LobbyFi voted in support of the proposal since the 'for' pool of the community auction accrued more ETH than the 'against' pool at the end of the voting period on LobbyFi.
I think it's unfortunate that these two proposals are combined. They are related by topic, but not at all related by impact and purpose.
Any discussion around either of these proposals will now be marred by confusion and conflation of the two, and our human natures may leave us inclined to have our approval of one part of the proposal (funds for the DAO) influence how we feel about the other part of the proposal (the implementation details of something technically complex over which people currently making money off of MEV have an immense interest in influencing).
I think it's unfortunate that these two proposals are combined. They are related by topic, but not at all related by impact and purpose.
Any discussion around either of these proposals will now be marred by confusion and conflation of the two, and our human natures may leave us inclined to have our approval of one part of the proposal (funds for the DAO) influence how we feel about the other part of the proposal (the implementation details of something technically complex over which people currently making money off of MEV have an immense interest in influencing).
To be clear, I am not arguing against either proposal taken in isolation, but I am arguing against the combination of the two, and any other combination of proposals in a similar manner. As a matter of "topic hygiene", I don't think topics should be combined in this manner in the future.
We voted in favour of this proposal on Snapshot and have nothing additional to add.
I beleive in Arbitrum's long-term progression and stability, this is why I vote FOR. Less spam, better efficiency and + 1,885 ETH into the DAO Treasury.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Combining these two proposals for an onchain vote makes sense. Plus, having supported the Timeboost proposal during its temp check, we had no issue supporting here as well.
There is not much more to add, I voted For because it is a logical proposal.
PS: Thanks for the proposal
Voting "For", not really much to say as at end of the day other than no sense in having idle ETH.
The PBC Governance team is voting FOR combining Timeboost and the Nova fee sweep into one Tally vote.
As other delegates mentioned, there isn't really much to discuss that hasn't been discussed in the original thread on Timeboost. (We agree that it's potentially a good source of DAO revenue and reduces the incentive to spam the chain, but it's something the DAO will need to monitor with live data) Additionally, as PBC voted for the Nova Fee Router prop last year, we also support sweeping the remaining Nova revenue into the treasury.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR, without retroactive in this proposal. Below the rationale:
Voted FOR as this is clearly in the best interest of the DAO and of the protocol. One future consideration for the eventual combined AIP given this:
Timeboost can only truly be evaluated with real-world data - data that can help hone and fine-tune Timeboost’s design for the benefit of the ArbitrumDAO.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe it makes sense to execute a sweep stored by the Nova transactions as discussed in the previous proposal that we already supported. We also believe bundling the Timeboost change and this proposal should make sense for their onchain voting.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
There is no reason to oppose this action. It is a logical step after having modernized the fee collection structure
I am voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I am considering the thorough vetting that this proposal has gone trough that includes security audits and testnet deployment. This upgrade represents a balance between generating revenue for the DAO and maintaining chain security.
I am voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I am considering the thorough vetting that this proposal has gone trough that includes security audits and testnet deployment. This upgrade represents a balance between generating revenue for the DAO and maintaining chain security.
The system implements robust fail-safes, including automatic reversion to FCFS ordering if needed, while keeping the DAO in control of key parameters. Additionally, the proposal will efficiently consolidate 1,885 ETH into the treasury.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
Having voted in favor of the Nova fee router proposal in the past, it makes sense to retroactively perform a sweep and transfer the fees already accrued by Nova before the router implementation to the DAO’s treasury. We do not think there’s anything contentious with bundling the sweep with the Timeboost proposal onchain and therefore we support it.
Also, as we mentioned when we voted in favor of the temp-check for Timeboost, we commit to verifying the executable once the proposal goes to an onchain vote before we cast our vote.
I voted for in snapshot.
Once again, I am voting FOR on Tally. Sentiment is the same as when I voted on Snapshot, this a no brainer that generally improves the network and adds extra treasury funds. Not much else to add.
Is there a timeline or updates on when the proposal will go to Tally?
The remaining issues should be resolved as soon as possible. FOR .....
LobbyFi voted in support of the proposal since the 'for' pool of the community auction accrued more ETH than the 'against' pool at the end of the voting period on LobbyFi.
I think it's unfortunate that these two proposals are combined. They are related by topic, but not at all related by impact and purpose.
Any discussion around either of these proposals will now be marred by confusion and conflation of the two, and our human natures may leave us inclined to have our approval of one part of the proposal (funds for the DAO) influence how we feel about the other part of the proposal (the implementation details of something technically complex over which people currently making money off of MEV have an immense interest in influencing).
I think it's unfortunate that these two proposals are combined. They are related by topic, but not at all related by impact and purpose.
Any discussion around either of these proposals will now be marred by confusion and conflation of the two, and our human natures may leave us inclined to have our approval of one part of the proposal (funds for the DAO) influence how we feel about the other part of the proposal (the implementation details of something technically complex over which people currently making money off of MEV have an immense interest in influencing).
To be clear, I am not arguing against either proposal taken in isolation, but I am arguing against the combination of the two, and any other combination of proposals in a similar manner. As a matter of "topic hygiene", I don't think topics should be combined in this manner in the future.
We voted in favour of this proposal on Snapshot and have nothing additional to add.
I beleive in Arbitrum's long-term progression and stability, this is why I vote FOR. Less spam, better efficiency and + 1,885 ETH into the DAO Treasury.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Combining these two proposals for an onchain vote makes sense. Plus, having supported the Timeboost proposal during its temp check, we had no issue supporting here as well.
There is not much more to add, I voted For because it is a logical proposal.
PS: Thanks for the proposal
Voting "For", not really much to say as at end of the day other than no sense in having idle ETH.
The PBC Governance team is voting FOR combining Timeboost and the Nova fee sweep into one Tally vote.
As other delegates mentioned, there isn't really much to discuss that hasn't been discussed in the original thread on Timeboost. (We agree that it's potentially a good source of DAO revenue and reduces the incentive to spam the chain, but it's something the DAO will need to monitor with live data) Additionally, as PBC voted for the Nova Fee Router prop last year, we also support sweeping the remaining Nova revenue into the treasury.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR, without retroactive in this proposal. Below the rationale:
Voted FOR as this is clearly in the best interest of the DAO and of the protocol. One future consideration for the eventual combined AIP given this:
Timeboost can only truly be evaluated with real-world data - data that can help hone and fine-tune Timeboost’s design for the benefit of the ArbitrumDAO.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe it makes sense to execute a sweep stored by the Nova transactions as discussed in the previous proposal that we already supported. We also believe bundling the Timeboost change and this proposal should make sense for their onchain voting.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
There is no reason to oppose this action. It is a logical step after having modernized the fee collection structure
I am voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I am considering the thorough vetting that this proposal has gone trough that includes security audits and testnet deployment. This upgrade represents a balance between generating revenue for the DAO and maintaining chain security.
I am voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I am considering the thorough vetting that this proposal has gone trough that includes security audits and testnet deployment. This upgrade represents a balance between generating revenue for the DAO and maintaining chain security.
The system implements robust fail-safes, including automatic reversion to FCFS ordering if needed, while keeping the DAO in control of key parameters. Additionally, the proposal will efficiently consolidate 1,885 ETH into the treasury.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
Having voted in favor of the Nova fee router proposal in the past, it makes sense to retroactively perform a sweep and transfer the fees already accrued by Nova before the router implementation to the DAO’s treasury. We do not think there’s anything contentious with bundling the sweep with the Timeboost proposal onchain and therefore we support it.
Also, as we mentioned when we voted in favor of the temp-check for Timeboost, we commit to verifying the executable once the proposal goes to an onchain vote before we cast our vote.
Voted FOR as this is clearly in the best interest of the DAO and of the protocol. One future consideration for the eventual combined AIP given this:
Timeboost can only truly be evaluated with real-world data - data that can help hone and fine-tune Timeboost’s design for the benefit of the ArbitrumDAO.
It would be ideal to have some kind of dashboard or reporting that would provide this data in a way that would help the DAO to monitor how Timeboost is performing over time.
We're voting for Nova Fee Swap proposal on Snapshot as we believe this is a necessary and transparent action.
Recovering Idle Funds: The Nova Fee Sweep addresses the accumulation of 1,885 ETH in the L1TimelockAlias, ensuring that these funds are moved to the DAO treasury. The Nova Fee Router proposal has improved the efficiency and transparency of this process.
Supporting DAO Operations: These funds will contribute to DAO operations, with all transfers being conducted through on-chain, auditable smart contracts, ensuring transparency.
I vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot. There are no reasons to oppose this proposal, it brings new funds that would be otherwise locked to be readily available for other uses to the DAO.
Also, Timesweep takes advantage of the possibility of bringing additional rewards to the ecosystem while reducing MEV affectations. I'm confident that the team will keep monitoring the impact of this new transaction order policy to fine tune it in the future, as it is said in the proposal.
I'm supporting this proposal on Snapshot. The benefits of timeboost are clear and are something I'm personally excited about. It's a great way for the DAO to generate extra revenue while still maintaining a high level of MEV resistance. Concerning the Nova fee sweep, it is a no-brainer, and it only makes sense to transfer the 1,885 ETH to the treasury. As others have already mentioned, I also support merging these proposals for the on-chain vote to streamline governance and ensure quorum.
I'm voting FOR this proposal.
It doesn't seem to impact the user but helps get more revenue to the DAO treasury. Win-win!
Similarly, the Nove Fee Sweep seems to make accessing the funds more efficient. Another win for the DAO.
I voted for this proposal at the temp check stage. I'm in favor of redirecting MEV revenue to the DAO (and hopefully eventually token holders). I agree with including Nova as a fee source.
We're voting for this proposal because it makes smart changes on two fronts. Timeboost gives us a fair way to handle MEV while bringing in revenue for the DAO, and the Nova Fee Sweep just cleanly moves 1,885 ETH to where it belongs in our treasury. The implementation looks solid with proper audits and testing, and we like that we can adjust things if needed. Makes sense to do both in one vote.
This proposal is a good step for ArbitrumDAO. I think it helps collect more money and improve the system. Timeboost is an interesting idea, but I wonder if it could create problems for smaller users who cannot afford to bid for faster transactions. So I would like to ask, how regular users might be affected—will normal transactions become slower?
Like the others, there isn’t much to add. I vote in favor of transferring the funds to the DAO treasury.
Simple decision, voted yes on Snapshot. Happy to see the DAO always having timely and transparent solutions for situations like this. Arbitrum DAO can unlock funds, streamline treasury management and reduce administrative burdens
Voted 'for' in Snapshot. I think there isn't much to discuss, and we should put the idle ETH to work in the best possible way for the DAO and the ecosystem. Also, I believe having something like timeboost to capture additional revenue that is sometimes captured by searchers is a great net positive for the DAO. Im so looking forward to see the benefits of timeboost!!
I voted FOR on this proposal. The sweep brings idle funds to the treasury. I will leave the comments about Timeboost for when the onchain vote is up.
Very reasonable, nothing to add. Voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We support this proposal as it ensures that the 1,885 ETH in fees is transferred to the DAO Treasury. Additionally, we echo with other delegates that we can explore ways to generate yield from these funds in the future, which could be valuable.
Also, we agree with combining both proposals into a single proposal on Tally, as the DAO supported both.
I'm voting FOR this proposal. It make sense to send the ETH where it can be managed. Im also supportive of comments of using the eth to get yield .
Voted For: The proposal makes sense and is very straightforward. I agree with some other comments that ETH collected (1885 ETH) could be used in staking protocols and give yield to the DAO. Something to discuss in a proposal. Also combining both votes on Tally for Timeboost and Fees Sweep makes sense since both are getting support from DAO.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot because it will strengthen network efficiency, boost treasury funds, and ensure long-term sustainability for Arbitrum. I also voted for this proposal on Event Horizon and submitted a 'FOR' bid on LobbyFi.
A penny saved is a penny earned. :moneybag: I fully support the proposal as it significantly streamlines the fund collection process, enhancing efficiency and transparency. The initiative to sweep the stranded funds into the DAO Treasury is a prudent move that will undoubtedly contribute to the growth and stability of the DAO. Additionally, I agree with combining both the Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP into a single proposal. This consolidation not only simplifies the voting process but also ensures a cohesive approach to implementing these critical upgrades.
Vote for this proposal on Snapshot and support it without any doubt to avoid 1,885 ETH funds to remain idle for a long time and transfer them to the treasury. At the same time, Timeboost as a long-term mechanism, the new transaction ordering policy will increase chain revenue and optimize the governance process, which can provide a continuous flow of DAO funds. Thanks for the proposal!
tbh not too much to discuss. Let's sweep the fees, and let's also find a way to use next time the swept eth to produce yield for the dao.
In favor of combining both the timeboost and this sweep into a single AIP for convenience, to focus efforts into quorum one time instead of two.
Voted FOR as this is clearly in the best interest of the DAO and of the protocol. One future consideration for the eventual combined AIP given this:
Timeboost can only truly be evaluated with real-world data - data that can help hone and fine-tune Timeboost’s design for the benefit of the ArbitrumDAO.
It would be ideal to have some kind of dashboard or reporting that would provide this data in a way that would help the DAO to monitor how Timeboost is performing over time.
We're voting for Nova Fee Swap proposal on Snapshot as we believe this is a necessary and transparent action.
Recovering Idle Funds: The Nova Fee Sweep addresses the accumulation of 1,885 ETH in the L1TimelockAlias, ensuring that these funds are moved to the DAO treasury. The Nova Fee Router proposal has improved the efficiency and transparency of this process.
Supporting DAO Operations: These funds will contribute to DAO operations, with all transfers being conducted through on-chain, auditable smart contracts, ensuring transparency.
I vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot. There are no reasons to oppose this proposal, it brings new funds that would be otherwise locked to be readily available for other uses to the DAO.
Also, Timesweep takes advantage of the possibility of bringing additional rewards to the ecosystem while reducing MEV affectations. I'm confident that the team will keep monitoring the impact of this new transaction order policy to fine tune it in the future, as it is said in the proposal.
I'm supporting this proposal on Snapshot. The benefits of timeboost are clear and are something I'm personally excited about. It's a great way for the DAO to generate extra revenue while still maintaining a high level of MEV resistance. Concerning the Nova fee sweep, it is a no-brainer, and it only makes sense to transfer the 1,885 ETH to the treasury. As others have already mentioned, I also support merging these proposals for the on-chain vote to streamline governance and ensure quorum.
I'm voting FOR this proposal.
It doesn't seem to impact the user but helps get more revenue to the DAO treasury. Win-win!
Similarly, the Nove Fee Sweep seems to make accessing the funds more efficient. Another win for the DAO.
I voted for this proposal at the temp check stage. I'm in favor of redirecting MEV revenue to the DAO (and hopefully eventually token holders). I agree with including Nova as a fee source.
We're voting for this proposal because it makes smart changes on two fronts. Timeboost gives us a fair way to handle MEV while bringing in revenue for the DAO, and the Nova Fee Sweep just cleanly moves 1,885 ETH to where it belongs in our treasury. The implementation looks solid with proper audits and testing, and we like that we can adjust things if needed. Makes sense to do both in one vote.
This proposal is a good step for ArbitrumDAO. I think it helps collect more money and improve the system. Timeboost is an interesting idea, but I wonder if it could create problems for smaller users who cannot afford to bid for faster transactions. So I would like to ask, how regular users might be affected—will normal transactions become slower?
Like the others, there isn’t much to add. I vote in favor of transferring the funds to the DAO treasury.
Simple decision, voted yes on Snapshot. Happy to see the DAO always having timely and transparent solutions for situations like this. Arbitrum DAO can unlock funds, streamline treasury management and reduce administrative burdens
Voted 'for' in Snapshot. I think there isn't much to discuss, and we should put the idle ETH to work in the best possible way for the DAO and the ecosystem. Also, I believe having something like timeboost to capture additional revenue that is sometimes captured by searchers is a great net positive for the DAO. Im so looking forward to see the benefits of timeboost!!
I voted FOR on this proposal. The sweep brings idle funds to the treasury. I will leave the comments about Timeboost for when the onchain vote is up.
Very reasonable, nothing to add. Voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We support this proposal as it ensures that the 1,885 ETH in fees is transferred to the DAO Treasury. Additionally, we echo with other delegates that we can explore ways to generate yield from these funds in the future, which could be valuable.
Also, we agree with combining both proposals into a single proposal on Tally, as the DAO supported both.
I'm voting FOR this proposal. It make sense to send the ETH where it can be managed. Im also supportive of comments of using the eth to get yield .
Voted For: The proposal makes sense and is very straightforward. I agree with some other comments that ETH collected (1885 ETH) could be used in staking protocols and give yield to the DAO. Something to discuss in a proposal. Also combining both votes on Tally for Timeboost and Fees Sweep makes sense since both are getting support from DAO.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot because it will strengthen network efficiency, boost treasury funds, and ensure long-term sustainability for Arbitrum. I also voted for this proposal on Event Horizon and submitted a 'FOR' bid on LobbyFi.
A penny saved is a penny earned. :moneybag: I fully support the proposal as it significantly streamlines the fund collection process, enhancing efficiency and transparency. The initiative to sweep the stranded funds into the DAO Treasury is a prudent move that will undoubtedly contribute to the growth and stability of the DAO. Additionally, I agree with combining both the Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP into a single proposal. This consolidation not only simplifies the voting process but also ensures a cohesive approach to implementing these critical upgrades.
Vote for this proposal on Snapshot and support it without any doubt to avoid 1,885 ETH funds to remain idle for a long time and transfer them to the treasury. At the same time, Timeboost as a long-term mechanism, the new transaction ordering policy will increase chain revenue and optimize the governance process, which can provide a continuous flow of DAO funds. Thanks for the proposal!
tbh not too much to discuss. Let's sweep the fees, and let's also find a way to use next time the swept eth to produce yield for the dao.
In favor of combining both the timeboost and this sweep into a single AIP for convenience, to focus efforts into quorum one time instead of two.
We will vote yes on this. Returning the funds to be productive for the DAO is a simple decision.
Further information about timeboost and it's benefits / downsides after some time in production will be most welcome. Where can we best find this information? A single location for this kind of info on the DAO would be helpful.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
The combined proposal is net good for the ArbitrumDAO and grows the pie rather than redistributes the existing pieces - hence we do not see a “single” profiteer but rather the broader community to benefit from it. For this reason, the auction will be turned on and we highly encourage anyone who wants to support this proposal to try out our community auction. The instant buy will be set relatively high (1% from the financial part: 1885 ETH * 1% ≈ 18.85 ETH) in order to prevent a potential “troll” from purchasing the “against” option - we consider it very unlikely that either option will be purchased via instant buy.
voting For the current offchain proposal because it makes no sense to leave this much ETH, getting stale, in the L1 timelock.
I voted FOR on Snapshot. This is really a no-brainer and combining both Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP is probably the way to go.
Voted in favor of this proposal (Snapshot) because it introduces an innovative mechanism that not only optimizes the distribution of funds collected through Nova fees but also incentivizes active community participation by rewarding users who contribute to the ecosystem.
Support, must vote yes, the proposal is to increase the economic efficiency of the chain, allowing DAOs to earn more, optimizing the fairness and sustainability of the system. timeboost allows DAOs to earn MEV-related revenue without affecting the experience of regular users, and the mechanism is open and transparent, so that everyone has a chance to bid on it. the Nova Fee Sweep is just a way to make the DAOs use their own funds more quickly, no harm done. Nova Fee Sweep just allows DAOs to use their own funds faster, there's no harm in that, and the sooner it's done, the better!
Thank you for presenting this proposal. I am voting FOR it and am pleased to see these ETH transferred to the DAO Treasury. I look forward to seeing them utilized in an ETh-aligned way if possible
Voting YES. I have already stated my opinion on the timeboost but I do also think that the roughly 1900ETH shouldn't be sitting idle but rather be used for the Arbitrum DAO.
Im also urging the DAO to consider staking these ETH similiar to what the Aave DAO does. This helps strengthening the ecosystem and boosts decentralization.
Entropy posted the approval for the Nova Fee Sweep action to Snapshot on behalf of the Arbitrum Foundation. It is now live for voting.
We will vote yes on this. Returning the funds to be productive for the DAO is a simple decision.
Further information about timeboost and it's benefits / downsides after some time in production will be most welcome. Where can we best find this information? A single location for this kind of info on the DAO would be helpful.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
The combined proposal is net good for the ArbitrumDAO and grows the pie rather than redistributes the existing pieces - hence we do not see a “single” profiteer but rather the broader community to benefit from it. For this reason, the auction will be turned on and we highly encourage anyone who wants to support this proposal to try out our community auction. The instant buy will be set relatively high (1% from the financial part: 1885 ETH * 1% ≈ 18.85 ETH) in order to prevent a potential “troll” from purchasing the “against” option - we consider it very unlikely that either option will be purchased via instant buy.
voting For the current offchain proposal because it makes no sense to leave this much ETH, getting stale, in the L1 timelock.
I voted FOR on Snapshot. This is really a no-brainer and combining both Timeboost AIP and the Nova Fee Sweep action AIP is probably the way to go.
Voted in favor of this proposal (Snapshot) because it introduces an innovative mechanism that not only optimizes the distribution of funds collected through Nova fees but also incentivizes active community participation by rewarding users who contribute to the ecosystem.
Support, must vote yes, the proposal is to increase the economic efficiency of the chain, allowing DAOs to earn more, optimizing the fairness and sustainability of the system. timeboost allows DAOs to earn MEV-related revenue without affecting the experience of regular users, and the mechanism is open and transparent, so that everyone has a chance to bid on it. the Nova Fee Sweep is just a way to make the DAOs use their own funds more quickly, no harm done. Nova Fee Sweep just allows DAOs to use their own funds faster, there's no harm in that, and the sooner it's done, the better!
Thank you for presenting this proposal. I am voting FOR it and am pleased to see these ETH transferred to the DAO Treasury. I look forward to seeing them utilized in an ETh-aligned way if possible
Voting YES. I have already stated my opinion on the timeboost but I do also think that the roughly 1900ETH shouldn't be sitting idle but rather be used for the Arbitrum DAO.
Im also urging the DAO to consider staking these ETH similiar to what the Aave DAO does. This helps strengthening the ecosystem and boosts decentralization.
Entropy posted the approval for the Nova Fee Sweep action to Snapshot on behalf of the Arbitrum Foundation. It is now live for voting.
This is a highly welcome proposal for the DAO. Timeboost presents a thoughtful mechanism to address MEV extraction for the Arbitrum Network. We’re also happy to see steps taken to transfer historical fees to the DAO treasury in line with the now in-place Nova Fee Router. We look forward to supporting this proposal during the onchain vote.
A good proposal is precisely in combining proposals.
In fact, at the on-chain voting stage, it would be good to make it a rule to introduce several proposals from the snapshot that passed with a certain share of votes (for example, more than 90%).
I think that even unrelated initiatives can be combined
I agree with the Timeboost upgrade. I'm curious to see how it affects latency and UX on Arbitrum One mainnet, but if it turns out to have unexpected issues I'm sure we can revert back to the old approach. I also support the Nova fee sweep action, it's a no-brainer, that's why I voted FOR the proposal.
This is a highly welcome proposal for the DAO. Timeboost presents a thoughtful mechanism to address MEV extraction for the Arbitrum Network. We’re also happy to see steps taken to transfer historical fees to the DAO treasury in line with the now in-place Nova Fee Router. We look forward to supporting this proposal during the onchain vote.
A good proposal is precisely in combining proposals.
In fact, at the on-chain voting stage, it would be good to make it a rule to introduce several proposals from the snapshot that passed with a certain share of votes (for example, more than 90%).
I think that even unrelated initiatives can be combined
I agree with the Timeboost upgrade. I'm curious to see how it affects latency and UX on Arbitrum One mainnet, but if it turns out to have unexpected issues I'm sure we can revert back to the old approach. I also support the Nova fee sweep action, it's a no-brainer, that's why I voted FOR the proposal.