Reason: Voting For. In my opinion, this is a good way of doing a budget.

Reason: One step closer to superchain interoperability

Reason: I'm disappointed that this is the same intent as last season, but with reduced numbers. I'm disappointed interop didn't ship last season and the intent wasn't achieved. And I'm disappointed that the target is lower this season. But I'm voting for, because interop is still as important, or perhaps even more important now. I would like to see a little more constraint on how much $OP is spent, because the token is under pressure which becomes self-sustaining with high spending - and more attention paid to driving value to $OP to mitigate this (either through hard value accrual, or spreading the gospel of the superchain).

Reason: A good proposal with some improvements on last season.

Reason: One option, happy to approve it.

Reason: One option, happy to keep supporting Ed.

Reason: This is a simple improvement to prevent possible voting problems.

Reason: I think this is an improvement on the current selection process, so I'm voting for. However, I think there is further room for improvement in the execution of this - I'm not sure random selection is perfect, and I'd also like to see selection criteria expanded on, perhaps to exclude red flags, or to evaluate the quality of previous council service.

Reason: This is another step toward decentralisation, taking something previously done by the foundation and putting it in the hands of the collective.

Reason: Another day, another upgrade.

Reason: This will improve scalability, fault proofs, and fee pricing.

Reason: This will improve and simplify upgrades in future, and enhance security response procedures.

Reason: I love standardized contracts

Reason: All candidates are good, but I think these three stand above the rest, with a good mix of skills and experience.

Reason: It's really hard to choose between these candidates, because they're all great. I can't choose two. So I've voted for the one candidate that I'd be most upset if he wasn't elected.

Reason: I would be happy with any 3 of these 4 to be elected. They have a large edge over the other candidates and I think they're all highly qualified.

Reason: These two have excellent backgrounds and could be a great addition to the team.

Reason: I've chosen candidates that have a track record of clear competency for this role, and those that have a lot at stake (Ink, Coinbase, World)

Reason: Bunnic has a great track record. I'm not surprised he's unopposed.

Reason: These 5 candidates have a clear edge over the others, and have proven competence for this role.