Reason: YES with reservations I am voting YES on this proposal, with some measured reservations. I strongly support the move toward staked SCR as the foundation of delegation. Anchoring governance power in economic commitment meaningfully improves signal quality, long-term alignment, and accountability, and I see this as a clear step forward for Scroll DAO governance. I also appreciate the focus on execution, clearer ownership, and measurable impact. The rationale for a more coordinated, execution-oriented phase is understandable in the current context. Still, I continue to believe that the deliberative culture and decentralization trajectory developed over the past year are among the DAO’s strongest assets. As long as this new framework is treated as an enabling phase—designed to unlock effectiveness while actively preserving the DAO’s authority to decentralize further—I am comfortable supporting it.

Reason: ’m in favor of extending the Auto-Abstaining Wallet because, quite simply, it has worked exactly as intended at a moment when our governance needed stability. Since its rollout in mid-2025, it has quietly but reliably ensured that our proposals reach quorum without influencing outcomes—stepping in only to help the process function, not to shape decisions. In several cases, proposals that mattered to the community wouldn’t have moved forward without this support. This extension doesn’t add new costs, change operations, or expand its mandate. It just preserves a tool that has already proven valuable while participation across the DAO continues to develop. Until our governance ecosystem becomes consistently self-sustaining, keeping this safeguard in place feels like a reasonable and responsible choice.

Reason: I’m voting FOR Proposal #4 (Governance Council Formation). My main motivation as a delegate in Scroll is to strengthen deliberation. I believe that good governance is not just about casting votes, but about creating the right spaces, tools, and processes for real discussion and thoughtful decision-making. This proposal is a step toward that, because it gives us the capacity to research, test, and implement new approaches. In particular, I want to see us explore the deliberative tooling landscape—to understand what works best for our community, and how we can make governance more accessible and inclusive. Alongside that, I think futarchy-style experiments are worth piloting for specific decisions, and I strongly support a careful, critical look at how AI can support governance. AI tools could help reduce the cognitive load of governance, but we also need to be mindful about risks and ensure they are used responsibly. For me, the Governance Council is an opportunity to make Scroll a leader in governance innovation, and deliberation should be at the heart of that.

Reason: I’m voting FOR Proposal #3 (GCR Cycle 2), but with some important reservations. First of all, I want to acknowledge the work that has gone into this program. It’s clear that a lot of effort and discussion went into designing the tiers and thresholds, and I support the overall goal of rewarding active governance contributions. That said, I think the current threshold system has a flaw. It feels skewed toward professional delegates, which risks disincentivizing participation from people who can contribute meaningfully but aren’t “full-time Scroll politicians.” In traditional politics, there are professional politicians who dedicate their careers to it—but there are also thousands of people engaged at the local level, like in city councils, who do it alongside other jobs. Both types of participation matter, and we should reflect that in how we reward delegates. As it stands, the high threshold may exclude part-time delegates who still bring valuable perspectives and thoughtful contributions. I think we should explore a system that balances this better—for example: introducing a tier that emphasizes quality over quantity, or creating a pool with random allocation for delegates hitting a mid-range threshold (say 30–60%), to keep them engaged without requiring full-time commitment. Otherwise, I worry that the system could reduce the diversity of active delegates by making it too demanding to qualify. So while I support this proposal and will vote in favor, I see it as a step forward but not the final word. We should continue refining it to recognize not only professional delegates, but also those who contribute strongly while balancing other activities.

Reason: What I really like with Avantgarde is their approach of having a real discussion with the DAO about the exact strategy. On top of that, their cost structure looks more affordable than the other options, which is important for us as we start professionalizing treasury management. I also see a big plus in the fact that they could help deploy MYSO on Scroll. That would be a win for the ecosystem, adding another layer of utility and growth. And finally, Avantgarde’s long experience working with strong teams across the space gives me confidence they can bring real value to Scroll.

Reason: I’m voting FOR this proposal. The timelock is a key part of how the DAO will operate in a more decentralized and automated way, so it makes sense to test it before relying on it for larger transactions. This proposal is a safe way to do that — it only moves 1 SCR, and the funds will go right back to the treasury. There’s essentially no financial risk, but a successful test gives us confidence that the system works as intended. Supporting it feels like a straightforward step toward strengthening our governance process.

Reason: Well drafted programm for Gov contribution Recognition

Reason: Very good move

Reason: Good mitigation strategy, I support it

Reason: I think this proposal is a strong first step. I know the team at RnDAO and they deliver excellent projects. Full yes.