A Vision for the Future of Arbitrum

[cxgonzalez]

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 “we encountered no issues here” rather than “this proposal should go through.” 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. AAE’s are described as

competent to accomplish the responsibilities that it has been assigned

yet which sane business owner would make their business model explicitly “we only serve one customer”? What talent are we expecting to attract with that filter? I understand that incentive alignment between the AAE and the DAO is crucial, but that’s precisely what point 3 of an AAE is for, namely:

Arbitrum winning is mission-critical to the organization’s success

Again, I fear this will end up repelling rational, competent builders away from the space. “Do not build here unless you’re willing to put all your eggs in one basket” is not the winning message we should be sending.

Again, more foundation involvement is needed. But let’s be cautious to overcorrect here.

[coffee-crusher]

Thanks for putting the time and care into this post, @paulofonseca . I’ve been attending the weekly governance calls recently, and have noticed that you’re often one of the few delegates actively raising questions and concerns, especially around participation, accountability, and expectations. It’s clear you’re trying to push the DAO toward higher standards, and I really respect that.

As someone who’s contributed to the DAO a few times and is working to get more involved, I’ve been thinking about how to support more constructive, focused conversations, especially around the deeper issues you’ve raised here.

I’m not a delegate yet, but I’ve been contributing where I can—and with 10+ years of experience hosting events that center difficult conversations, I’d love to help create a space where we can actually unpack this more.

Weekly calls are great for updates, but they often stay reactive. And while Forum posts like yours are important, they don’t always get the discussion or momentum they deserve.

So I’d love to host a small, curated conversation on Huddle01, with you and a couple of other delegates or contributors, to explore how we can actually move toward solutions on delegate participation and contributor accountability.

This wouldn’t be a public debate or recap, it would be a focused, ARB-gated roundtable designed for people who care about improving governance and want to build on what you’ve already laid out. Gating it with ARB is just a simple way to attract people who are already committed to the ecosystem, not to exclude anyone.

The goal is to elevate the conversation you started into a live, respectful discussion, one that could generate new ideas, shared expectations, or even next steps. And if you’re open to it, I’d be happy to (optionally) share clips or takeaways afterward so others in the community can benefit, even if they couldn’t attend.

Would you be open to joining?

Thanks again for surfacing this conversation. I think it’s an important one, and I’d love to help carry it forward in a way that’s collaborative, constructive, and genuinely useful to the DAO.

Thanks again for the thoughtful post.

[paulofonseca]

hey @coffee-crusher I love that idea! let’s organize that session and make sure it is run and facilitated in an unbiased way. I just DMed you on Telegram! let’s make this happen!

[coffee-crusher]

Hi @paulofonseca, I’m excited to work with you to move this forward and coordinate with you (and others - thk you to @KlausBrave for already reaching out - I’m thrilled to also have you be a part of this!) and will ensure this session is run in a neutral discussion format. Responded to you already on TG DM, thanks for the reach out!

The goal is to bring together delegates to have an honest conversation about how we can improve expectations, accountability, and transparency.

If you’re a delegate who’s interested in joining or has ideas you’d like to see covered, feel free to reply here or DM me on TG (@coffeecrusher). More details coming soon.

Really looking forward to making this a productive and solutions-oriented discussion for the DAO! ,

[GFXlabs]

@GFXlabs

Does @Arbitrum know yet if this will be followed up with a proposal? Or will this continue to be only a forum conversation to collect feedback and decide later whether to follow up with a proposal?

We ask because if there’s no proposal coming immediately, then that would probably help everyone relax a bit. Not knowing whether this vision will remain simply an aspirational opinion of AF or teasing a major reorganization proposal is taking a lot of the oxygen and bandwidth.

Bumping this since the lack of response or activity is causing confusion

@Arbitrum

[maxlomu]

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!

[danielo]

+1 here

All for efficiency, all for having people with the authority and ability to execute. Not keen on forcing everything to be approved by a small group of centralised entities, thus adding further hurdles to anyone who wants to propose via the DAO.

What I’d like to see is the foundation and OCL proposing SOSs, driving proposals through the DAO, etc. Instead of eliminating the ability of anyone else to propose unless they have their blessing.

If the current AAEs were more transparent and open, we could enable so much outside-in innovation. We can out-collaborate the competition, instead of defaulting to an old-fashioned model of work that quickly becomes full of bottlenecks. (I say this after a decade-plus in organisation design. I have no love for hippie models that can’t execute, but I also have no love for slow and clunky bureocracies that suck the soul out of workers and get people more interested in Instagram than doing their job).

More on this here https://x.com/_Daniel_Ospina/status/1924907740675141642

And taking a pragmatic approach to align things with the SOSs and the positive aspects of the vision: [SOS Submission] {Merged: TBD} – Strategic Objectives - #14 by danielo

[Arbitrum]

Hi all,

Thank you for the further comments.

Like last time, we have grouped certain questions into themes and have answered them below:

1. Will this vision be ratified through a vote by the DAO?

We agree with the statement by L2Beat that the DAO should first experiment with how the vision works in practice, iterate on it and make tweaks as needed, and then decide whether it should be ratified.

2. Will other AAEs be subordinate to the OpCo?

The OpCo, and by extension the OAT, will be responsible for holding the AAEs accountable on executing approved initiatives from the ArbitrumDAO. The OpCo is not ‘above’ the other AAEs.

3. What happens if the DAO approves a proposal and no AAE supports it?

Proposal authors are strongly encouraged to engage with the relevant AAE early in the process to explore feasibility. As outlined in the vision, ArbitrumDAO remains the ultimate decision-making authority.

In the event that a proposal is approved by the DAO but does not receive support from the relevant AAE, the OpCo will ensure the proposal is carried forward by holding the original proposal author accountable for its execution.

4. How might we ensure that broader community sentiment is consistently reflected in governance decisions beyond structured voting?

The core governance process of ArbitrumDAO remains unchanged as community sentiment continues to play a key role from the outset of any proposal. Proposals must still be posted publicly on the forum, where open discussion and feedback from the broader community inform their evolution, before being voted on via temperature checks and on-chain proposals.

5. What happens if an AAE’s actions ever significantly deviate from the community’s mandate or expectations?

The DAO retains authority over AAEs, via various means, based on how each AAE is governed (included in their bylaws).

Additionally, oversight committees such as the OAT or the GCP Council provide an independent layer of accountability, ensuring that AAE performance is continuously evaluated against the DAO’s mandate.

6. Could we consider additional consistent avenues for open, direct conversations between AAEs, delegates, and the broader community?

Yes—ongoing dialogue between AAEs, delegates, and the community is essential.

While the forum remains the primary venue for open discussion, we would welcome the development of additional channels—such as recurring governance calls, AMA sessions, and written updates—to foster transparent engagement.

We anticipate the OpCo taking the reins on supporting this consistent communication amongst all parties including delegates, AAEs, contributors, protocols, builders, etc.

7. Who were the entities that authored this vision?

This vision was driven by a collaboration between the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs. There was no “secret delegate meeting” in Denver, it was an event that had a public Luma page, however attendance was limited to delegates that met certain criteria (such as voting power). The new vision was initially deliberated upon at the event.

8. What is the procedure to onboard new and diverse AAEs going forward?

Creating a new AAE will need to go through the governance process as it will require funding from the DAO. Equally, there should be a rough consensus in the ArbitrumDAO that the new AAE is beneficial to the long-term goals of Arbitrum, is clearly dedicated to Arbitrum, and has a unique scope compared to other AAEs. We have witnessed three new organisations go through this process with GCP, OpCo, and Entropy Advisors, which have organically emerged from the ArbitrumDAO over the past 2 years. This demonstrates that it’s very possible to do when the need arises.