A source-bounded delegate verification file covering current proposal mechanics, proposed revenue routing, parameter authority, audit scope and unresolved evidence.
Governance status, audit availability, contract publication and implementation status may change.
Executive summary
The current official proposal describes Fast Feed as a paid, authenticated data stream for Arbitrum One. Subscribers would receive individual transaction data, relative ordering and related metadata after the sequencer has determined transaction order, but before the regular feed emits the completed block. [1]
The proposal says Fast Feed would expose already-ordered transaction data. Earlier observation is not the same as ordering authority, transaction priority, inclusion, execution or finality. [1]
The official forum update links Fast Feed to Snapshot. A
candidate exact URL
in the official arbitrumfoundation.eth space was identified, but the
proposal title, dates, result, totals and final state were not independently readable
from the Snapshot record in this review as of 11 July 2026. A formal onchain Fast Feed
proposal page was not located in the official sources reviewed. This article therefore
treats Fast Feed as a proposal-stage governance item and does not state that a formal
vote is open, concluded or passed.
[8]
If implemented, the current proposal would route specified Fast Feed proceeds through RewardDistributor using a proposed 97% DAO / 3% Arbitrum Developer Guild (ADG) weighting. The accessible record does not fully define gross-versus-net treatment, operating-cost deductions or realised treasury receipts. [1]
The located Trail of Bits report is a component-level review of RewardDistributor changes. It is not a Fast Feed Payment Contract audit and does not provide end-to-end Fast Feed security assurance. [4]
A public Fast Feed Payment Contract audit report was not identified in the official Arbitrum Security Audit Index or the publicly accessible primary sources reviewed as of 11 July 2026. This does not establish that no private or unpublished review exists. [3]
This brief does not tell delegates how to vote. It separates proposal claims, currently accessible evidence, unresolved gaps and questions that could only be tested after implementation.
Why this proposal benefits from a verification file
Fast Feed is not only a proposed data endpoint.
It combines a paid information product, sequencer infrastructure, a new payment contract, API-key authentication, role-based parameter authority and a proposed proceeds path to DAO-linked recipients. [1]
A delegate verification file helps separate what the feed would expose, when the information would become visible, how payments would be handled, who could change which parameters, which component has been audited, what evidence is missing now and what could only be assessed after implementation.
Some items—including a final audit report, executable payload or deployed contract details—may normally appear at later governance or implementation stages. Their absence from the current public record is treated here as a verification gap, not as evidence of misconduct or proposal failure.
What Fast Feed proposes
Arbitrum’s sequencer receives valid transactions and determines their order before publishing the resulting transaction stream and completed block data.
The proposal would add an authenticated WebSocket endpoint. A subscriber would pay through a Fast Feed Payment Contract and register the hash of an API key. The sequencer would compare a presented key with the credential recorded by the contract before allowing access. [1]
The proposed feed would publish each transaction after ordering has been determined but before a complete block is emitted through the regular feed. The proposed payload includes transaction data and hash, relative position, a tentative block number, timing and gas information, available execution logs and an incomplete receipt.
The proposal calls the block number tentative and says the incomplete receipt does not include a final block hash. That output should not be described as final block confirmation. [1]
Evidence boundary. The proposal describes the feed as ordering-neutral. That is a proposal-stage design claim, not evidence that the product would be market-neutral or have no second-order effects.
Current governance status
The official forum proposal was published by Offchain Labs on 19 June 2026. On 2 July, Offchain Labs said the proposal had advanced to a Snapshot Temperature Check. [1]
The official forum update links Fast Feed to Snapshot. A
candidate exact Snapshot URL
in the official arbitrumfoundation.eth space was identified, but the
proposal title, dates, result, totals and final state were not independently readable
from the Snapshot record in this review as of 11 July 2026.
[8]
No exact Fast Feed formal-proposal URL was retrieved from the official Arbitrum governance interface, official forum updates or official-domain Tally / Alt Gov searches as of 11 July 2026.
Under the Arbitrum DAO Constitution , a Snapshot temperature check and a formal onchain constitutional AIP are separate governance phases. An onchain vote, waiting periods, execution and implementation are also separate stages. [2]
Proposed payment and proceeds path
Proposed flow, if implemented:
subscriber payment → Fast Feed Payment Contract → RewardDistributor → proposed 97% DAO / 3% Arbitrum Developer Guild (ADG) weighting
If implemented, the current proposal would route specified Fast Feed proceeds through RewardDistributor using a proposed 97% DAO / 3% ADG weighting. The accessible record does not fully define gross-versus-net treatment, operating-cost deductions or realised treasury receipts. [1] [5]
No realised Fast Feed receipts were established in the public sources reviewed. The final payment stablecoin is not named in the proposal. [1]
The 97/3 weighting follows a Timeboost proceeds-routing precedent , but Timeboost is context only and not evidence of Fast Feed implementation or outcomes. [6]
Who could change what
The proposed Payment Contract includes DAO admin and beneficiary roles and a market-parameter role proposed for Offchain and the DAO. [1]
The proposal would grant Offchain and the DAO role-based authority over the listed Fast Feed market parameters. It does not establish unrestricted Offchain control. The final contract source, deployed role assignments, expiry enforcement, revocation path and change-notification process were not publicly verified in this review.
The proposal states a two-year grant of parameter-adjustment rights to Offchain over the listed parameters. The accessible evidence does not establish how that period would be enforced in deployed code. [1]
What has actually been audited
A
Trail of Bits report dated 16 June 2026
covers changes to RewardDistributor infrastructure. It covers PR #44 commit
fafc251 and additional PR #1 commit a64cc11 work.
Testing and deployment code were excluded, and the report records one informational
finding.
[4]
The report is not a Fast Feed Payment Contract audit and does not provide end-to-end Fast Feed security assurance.
A public Fast Feed Payment Contract audit report was not identified in the official Arbitrum Security Audit Index or the publicly accessible primary sources reviewed as of 11 July 2026. [3]
The proposal contains conflicting tense: some passages describe the Payment Contract as audited or deployed, while the implementation sequence says it will be audited before an onchain vote and deployed after approval. [1]
The public RewardDistributor source is context for the distribution component only. [5]
User and market-structure questions
The proposal distinguishes ordering from observation. Ordering determines transaction sequence; observation describes when another party can see the already-determined order.
Timeboost is different: it is a transaction-ordering policy involving an express lane and auction mechanism. It is context only, not Fast Feed-specific evidence. [7]
Delegates have raised questions about access concentration, pricing, reporting and possible second-order effects. Offchain Labs responded with proponent views on pricing, access, onchain visibility and periodic review. [1]
These statements are not post-implementation findings.
Verification fields for the current proposal stage
| Verification question | Current public answer | Evidence status | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the current proposal version? | Official forum proposal remains available. | Confirmed | Mechanics may change before formal submission. |
| What is the current Snapshot record and result? | The official forum links Fast Feed to Snapshot. A candidate exact URL was identified, but the proposal title, dates, result, totals and final state were not independently readable. | Partially confirmed | Separates the forum update from a readable poll outcome. |
| Is a formal onchain proposal open or complete? | No exact proposal URL was retrieved in the reviewed official search perimeter. | Not identified in the reviewed public sources | Prevents temporal and status errors. |
| What information would the feed expose? | Ordered transactions and proposed metadata before completed-block emission. | Proposal-stage only | Defines the proposed product. |
| Does earlier observation provide ordering authority? | The proposal says no. | Proposal-stage only | Observation is not priority or inclusion. |
| What is the proposed proceeds route? | Payment Contract → RewardDistributor → proposed 97% DAO / 3% ADG weighting. | Proposal-stage only | Maps proposed recipients. |
| Does 97% mean gross receipts? | Public wording is incomplete. | Partially confirmed | Prevents proceeds overclaim. |
| Which payment stablecoin will be used? | Final token is not named. | Not identified in the reviewed public sources | Asset and operational review. |
| Who could adjust market parameters? | Proposed DAO and Offchain authority over listed parameters. | Proposal-stage only | Defines scoped authority. |
| How is the two-year period enforced? | Enforcement mechanism was not verified. | Not identified in the reviewed public sources | Role sunset and revocation. |
| What does the located audit cover? | RewardDistributor changes only. | Confirmed | Prevents component-to-system drift. |
| Is a Fast Feed-specific audit public? | It was not identified in the reviewed official index and primary sources. | Not identified in the reviewed public sources | Audit-scope verification. |
| Is the Payment Contract source public? | No source or deployment address was located. | Not identified in the reviewed public sources | Code, role and audit-match review. |
| What reporting is committed? | Onchain events are proposed; a binding cadence was not identified. | Partially confirmed | Post-implementation oversight. |
| Is there a pause or rollback path? | A Fast Feed-specific process was not located. | Not identified in the reviewed public sources | Incident response. |
What could only be tested after implementation
Realised receipts, subscriber demand, price distribution, access concentration, parameter changes, operational incidents, reporting quality and measurable market effects require deployed evidence and post-implementation analysis.
What remains unresolved
| Verification gap | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Snapshot record, title, dates, result, totals and final state | Current governance status |
| Formal onchain proposal page | Vote stage, executable payload and timing |
| Fast Feed Payment Contract audit report | Actual security-review scope |
| Payment Contract source and deployment address | Code, roles and audit-match verification |
| Selected payment stablecoin | Asset and operational review |
| Gross-versus-net definition | Accurate proceeds interpretation |
| Role expiry, revocation and notification mechanics | Authority and oversight |
| Reporting and concentration-review cadence | Delegate monitoring |
| Pause, rollback and incident-response provisions | Operational response |
Some items may normally appear only at later governance or implementation stages. They remain verification gaps rather than evidence of proposal failure or misconduct.
What this evidence does not prove
This article does not prove a yes/no voting position, a security verdict, deployment, launch readiness, gross or realised revenue, market neutrality, treasury-health improvement, complete reporting, closed legal/compliance questions, or any Treasury Desk customer, demand, WTP, traction or PMF claim.
Method note
primary proposal → governance-status check → claim ledger → mechanics map → proposed proceeds map → authority map → audit-scope review → missing-evidence log → human review
Source-correction request
If we missed a publicly accessible primary source—including a readable Snapshot record, formal vote page, Fast Feed-specific audit report, contract source or deployment address—please point us to it so the verification file can be updated.
Source references
- [Constitutional] AIP Fast Feed — Offchain Labs, Arbitrum Governance Forum. Published 19 June 2026; retrieved 11 July 2026. Proposal identity, mechanics, proposed routing, roles, implementation sequence and proposer responses.
- The Amended Constitution of the Arbitrum DAO — Arbitrum DAO Governance Docs. Retrieved 11 July 2026. Snapshot, formal AIP, onchain vote, waiting-period and implementation-phase distinction.
- Security audit reports — Arbitrum Docs. Last updated 1 July 2026; retrieved 11 July 2026. Official public audit-report index and Fast Feed report-availability check.
- Offchain Reward Distributor Fixes — Security Assessment — Trail of Bits. Dated 16 June 2026; retrieved 11 July 2026. Exact RewardDistributor audit scope, commits, exclusions and finding.
- RewardDistributor.sol — Offchain Labs, GitHub. Retrieved 11 July 2026. Public source for the distribution component only.
- [Constitutional] AIP: Automate Timeboost Proceeds Split — Arbitrum Governance Forum. Retrieved 11 July 2026. Context only: 97% DAO / 3% Arbitrum Developer Guild routing precedent.
- How Timeboost works — Arbitrum Docs. Retrieved 11 July 2026. Context only: distinction between an ordering policy and Fast Feed observation timing.
- Candidate Snapshot record — official arbitrumfoundation.eth space — Snapshot. Retrieved 11 July 2026. Status lead only: proposal title, dates, result, totals and final state were not independently readable in this review.