gm - I find myself (surprisingly? 
) aligned with @paulofonseca’s words.
I fully support the renewed focus on operational efficiency that the Foundation outlined:
- Assigning operational responsibilities to specific entities
- Reducing the DAO’s involvement in every minor decision to reengage protocols and institutional investors
- Leveraging AAEs to coordinate major initiatives
However, it strongly feels we’re trending towards a more closed ecosystem that will create additional friction for contributors.
I would love to see a DAO that:
- Actively removes barriers to participation
- Fosters diversity and openness within the DAO ecosystem
- Encourages new contributors to bring fresh ideas and perspectives, and to build them
These approaches aren’t mutually exclusive, though I’m not convinced this is the direction AAEs intend to take.
I’d even be open to a tricameral system similar to Optimism’s model (token holders + selected members + council), even if I believe Arbitrum is tasked to create a more open system that encourages broader contribution.
Will this approach create some chaos? Absolutely.
But that creative chaos is precisely how we’ll thrive in the long term, I believe losing it will be a net negative for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Just my 2c - thanks!