Organisation design
It looks to me that the proposed vision went from one extreme (no centralised execution capacity in the DAO) to the opposite extreme (only centralised capacity and also only centralised decision making of what should be done).
The vision is this sense feels reactionary and doesn’t excite me (although still an improvement upon the past, we have organisational blueprints in the likes of Haier, etc that already show how to create more effective and innovative organisations than the design proposed).
For any structure to work with such high dependency on AAEs, we’d need increased transparency from the AAEs. All listed entities (except OpCo for obvious reasons) are falling short of what we should strive for here IMO.
The organisation design could likely work 5x better if the entities had clearer mandates/domains. Currently, the definition of what it takes to join this group is unclear, and that compounds with broad mandates and little transparency, meaning the rest of the ecosystem is likely to be alienated.
Trust
Although we see the impact that Entropy has had in Arbitrum as overall positive, we struggle to see how it can be classified as an AAE. Entropy is privately owned and their exclusivity contract with Arbitrum will end soon.
If all it takes is for a service provider to have Arbitrum as sole customer, then many many others would be considered AAEs in a dysfunctional manner.
We suggest includign some sort of tiered definition of AAEs with different levels of trust and authority granted as a result.
Overall
If the issues above are addressed or at least recognised as challenges to work on, I’d be significantly more optimistic about Arbitrum.