https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/127?u=tamara

Voting in line with the TMC's suggestion #3, expecting the team to go back and re-open applications for ARB strategies.

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-audit-program/28368/61?u=tamara

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-arbos-version-40-callisto/28436/27?u=tamara

As already voted FOR on snapshot proposal with rationale here https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-to-increase-the-stylus-sprint-committee-s-budget/28312/59?u=tamara

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/29?u=tamara

Found the summary document very helpful to make a decision. While I obviously do not have the technical depth to evaluate each team’s solution I - believe it is key for the DAO to foster Stylus’ adoption - trust that Entropy has the depth to make an informed decision about what additional application to fund (I would have been very sceptic had we been proposed to fund all 147 applications, but in this case we fund ~18% of applicants which imo is a decent acceptance rate

Abstaining because I came too late to the DAO to give proper feedback earlier. Based on what I was able to research the program has been successful in Season 1, with Season 2 still tbd. In my opinion we should focus on doubling down on Season 2 participants and hand hold them a bit further. Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it? The program talks about monitoring projects, but wouldn’t it be smarter to coach them in domains we as DAO are good at/can help them a hand to be successful? An Example is Lido Alliance but any Web2 Accelerator Program is doing it at some level i.e., giving money + expertise to make sure the money is “well invested”. On the other hand I have faith in Jojo and the team to do what is best for the ecosystem. Hence I abstain.