The Death of Decentralization
After reading the recently published “Vision for the Future of Arbitrum,” I feel compelled to speak out against what appears to be a fundamental betrayal of the values upon which Arbitrum and the broader Ethereum ecosystem were built.
Calling a Spade a Spade
Let’s be honest about what this proposal really is: an admission that the ArbitrumDAO experiment has failed, not because decentralization itself is flawed, but because the very entities that were meant to support it - The Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs - chose to take a “backseat role” rather than collaboratively building effective governance structures.
This proposal doesn’t fix the problems it identifies; it simply abandons the principles of decentralization altogether under the guise of “operational efficiency.”
The Convenient Truth’s New Narrative
The document constructs a narrative that decentralized governance is inherently inefficient and that the solution is to concentrate power in the hands of five pre-selected “Arbitrum Aligned Entities.” These entities would effectively control which proposals even reach a vote and would expect delegates to “largely listen to” their recommendations.
This isn’t evolution but regression to centralized control while maintaining the façade of decentralization.
Abandoned Revolution
The real failure here isn’t the DAO structure. It’s the failure of leadership to properly support and evolve decentralized governance mechanisms. Instead of investing in better tools, clearer processes, and genuine community empowerment, this proposal suggests that the answer is to simply let a small group of entities dictate Arbitrum’s future.
If proposal gridlock, inefficient processes, and lack of accountability are the problems, there are decentralized solutions we could pursue:
- Better governance tools and dashboards
- Clear frameworks for proposal evaluation without centralized gatekeepers
- Objective metrics for tracking proposal implementation
- Delegation improvements that expand stakeholder participation without centralizing power
Glorified Rubber Stamps
As a delegate, this proposal is particularly frustrating. It essentially tells us that our perspectives only matter when they align with these “Arbitrum Aligned Entities.” Our role would be reduced to rubber-stamping decisions made by these pre-selected organizations, with the explicit expectation that we will “generally dismiss proposals that are not endorsed by those working for Arbitrum in that area.”
What is the point of being a delegate in such a system? Why continue collaborating when divergent viewpoints will simply be suppressed?
Code Is Law, Unless It’s Inconvenient
If operational efficiency is the only value that matters, then yes, perhaps a small group of aligned entities making all the decisions would be faster. But Arbitrum was built on the Ethereum ecosystem - an ecosystem that values decentralization, censorship resistance, and community governance as core principles.
This proposal is a direct attack on those values. It suggests that when decentralization becomes challenging, the solution is to abandon it rather than work harder to make it successful.
Decentralize or Die
The ArbitrumDAO now faces a critical choice: will we stay true to the principles of decentralization, even when it’s difficult, or will we sacrifice those principles for the sake of expediency?
This announcement lays bare the intention to move Arbitrum toward a more centralized governance model. The fact that this direction is being presented as an announcement rather than a proposal subject to community vote only underscores the concern. The OpCo will soon be operational with a composition that raises questions about genuine community representation.
If this vision becomes reality, we should at least be honest about what’s happening: this isn’t an “evolution” of the DAO. It’s its dissolution.
Freedom Fighter?
I’ve chosen to share my thoughts on the recent “Vision for the Future of Arbitrum” anonymously. While I believe strongly in these views, the very direction outlined in this new vision demonstrates why dissenting voices might hesitate to speak openly. When power is concentrated and gatekeeping becomes the norm, those who challenge the prevailing narrative may find themselves marginalized. This, in itself, highlights one of the fundamental problems with moving away from truly decentralized governance.
My hope is that by focusing on the substance of these concerns rather than who is raising them, we can have an honest conversation about the future of Arbitrum and what we truly value as a community.