More Foundation involvement in the form of due diligence, product management, and operational expertise is definitely called for. However, I see two massive issues with the current OP:
OpCo functionally kills the DAO
OpCo should not be in the business of giving the DAO a nod of approval to proposals. This should instead be framed as an absence of a negative, not a sign of approval (which tips the scales in favor of centralized king making). Specifically, a positive OpCo review should be framed as âwe encountered no issues hereâ rather than âthis proposal should go through.â This framing makes a world of difference as one is highlighting that a minimum viable threshold has been passed, while the other is a full on endorsement. Otherwise I see no reason why we should even have delegates if OpCo is really able to force proposals, or kill active projects.
OpCo should be considered a project manager-meets-operations lead. They should check to see if compensation makes sense, if the projects are on track, and if any major norms are being violated. They should not be the ones unilaterally deciding what goes through the DAO otherwise the DAO vote serves as nothing more than a rubber stamp.
The AAE requirement will not attract talent
I also worry that a universal barring of any service provider that has more than a single customer will prove to be an own goal. AAEâs are described as
competent to accomplish the responsibilities that it has been assigned
yet which sane business owner would make their business model explicitly âwe only serve one customerâ? What talent are we expecting to attract with that filter? I understand that incentive alignment between the AAE and the DAO is crucial, but thatâs precisely what point 3 of an AAE is for, namely:
Arbitrum winning is mission-critical to the organizationâs success
Again, I fear this will end up repelling rational, competent builders away from the space. âDo not build here unless youâre willing to put all your eggs in one basketâ is not the winning message we should be sending.
Again, more foundation involvement is needed. But letâs be cautious to overcorrect here.