I. Abstract
The Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee (”ADPC”) has successfully completed its inaugural six-month term, marking a significant milestone in decentralized governance and procurement. This comprehensive outcome report highlights the ADPC’s achievements, innovative approaches, and valuable learnings that have set new standards for DAO operations. Key accomplishments include the development and implementation of a security-oriented service providers procurement framework, the creation of a USD 2.5 million subsidy fund to support projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem, and the establishment of a robust operational infrastructure for decentralized procurement.
The ADPC’s work has been characterized by a strong commitment to community engagement, transparency, and responsive governance. Through regular community calls, forum discussions, and iterative proposal refinements, the committee has fostered a collaborative environment that has strengthened the Arbitrum ecosystem. Despite facing challenges inherent in pioneering decentralized procurement processes, the ADPC has demonstrated an ability to adapt and proactively take community feedback on board, showcasing the strengths of decentralized governance.
This report showcases the ADPC’s progress and success to date and simultaneously presents a forward-looking vision for the committee’s future. With plans to expand scope, increase capacity, and implement new procurement frameworks, the ADPC is keen to continue driving innovation and efficiency within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Please find the full Outcome Report here available to download.
Table of Contents
I. Abstract
Table of Contents
II. Introduction
III. Achievements and Progress
IV. Financial Overview
V. Community Engagement
VI. Complexities
VII. Key Learnings and Recommendations
VIII. Outlook
IX. Appendices
II. Introduction
The ADPC is pleased to present this comprehensive report detailing the significant progress and achievements made during our inaugural term. This report highlights our successes in establishing groundbreaking procurement frameworks, fostering community engagement, and laying a strong foundation for the future of decentralized procurement within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
II.1 Background of the ADPC
The ADPC was established as a crucial component of the Arbitrum ecosystem’s governance structure, following a successful proposal and subsequent community vote in early 2024. The formation of the ADPC was driven by the growing need for a structured, transparent, and efficient approach to procurement within the Arbitrum ecosystem, ultimately contributing to the ecosystem’s growth, security, and sustainability.
The inception of the ADPC can be traced back to discussions within the Arbitrum community about the challenges faced by projects building on the protocol, particularly in securing high-quality service providers. These discussions highlighted the need for a preemptive quality assurance mechanism that could benefit the entire ecosystem. Against the background of the work done by Joseph (@immutablelawyer) to launch this initiative, the subsequent formation of the committee marked a pivotal moment not only in Arbitrum’s governance evolution, but for DAOs in general. Using the model and refinements put forward by @immutablelawyer, we went on to build an ADPC infrastructure designed to address immediate needs and create a foundation for future growth and efficiency in the ecosystem.
Key aspects of the ADPC’s formation included:
- Funding: A budget of $8,000 per month per member, payable in ARB tokens at the applicable conversion rate at the end of the respective month, with a total funding request of 200,000 ARB for the 6-month term was allocated.
- Legal Framework: An agreement with the Arbitrum Foundation was established to regulate the ADPC’s activities, covering aspects such as appointment, conflict of interest, mandate fulfilment, and ethical standards.
- Composition: The ADPC was designed to consist of three members, elected through an open and transparent process using Snapshot’s weighted voting system.
- Eligibility Criteria: Strict eligibility criteria were established for potential members, including experience in procurement, legal or administrative roles, industry knowledge, analytical skills, and a commitment to ethical conduct.
- Election Process: A detailed election process was implemented, involving application submission, KYC/KYB review, and community voting.
- Operational Structure: The ADPC was set up with a 3/5 multisig for fund management, ensuring accountability and security in financial operations.
II.2 Mandate and Objectives
These mandates collectively aimed to create a transparent, efficient, and accountable approach to procurement within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The ADPC’s objectives were designed to benefit the entire community by ensuring high-quality service providers, supporting smaller projects, and establishing robust frameworks for future procurement needs.
This mandate relied on strategic sourcing methodology that strengthened the buying power and negotiating leverage for the DAO by channelling spend through a pre-defined and pre-agreed marketplace and procurement framework.
The scope of the ADPC’s mandate was intentionally broad, allowing for adaptation to the evolving needs of the Arbitrum DAO while maintaining a primary focus on security-oriented services in its initial phase.
Pursuant to the on-chain vote, the ADPC was established with the following mandate:
- Oversight of Security-Oriented Service Providers Framework
”The primary mandate of the Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee (ADPC) is to oversee and facilitate the recently ratified procurement framework for security-oriented service providers within the Arbitrum Ecosystem, as per the following reference: [Snapshot Proposal Link: Snapshot 11]. In this capacity, the ADPC bears the responsibility of diligently executing the steps essential to implement the aforementioned procurement framework in a manner characterized by transparency and efficiency." - Subsidy Fund Research and Proposal
“The ADPC will be tasked with researching & drafting a proposal to the ArbitrumDAO to set up a subsidy-fund for security-oriented services that will be used to subsidize the costs for security-services for smaller projects within the Arbitrum Ecosystem.” - Development of Eligibility Framework (‘Means Test’)
“The ADPC will be tasked with researching & implementing a framework that will establish a set of qualitative & quantitative metrics that will be utilized so as to assess a project’s eligibility for the ‘Subsidy Fund’ referred to in point [b] above. This ‘Means Test’ (as referred to in traditional administrative practices), will be bundled in with the proposal that will set up the subsidy fund referred to in [b]. The Means Test will be used to assess whether a project is eligible for security service-fee subsidies.” - Establishment of Future Procurement Frameworks
“The ADPC will be tasked with establishing procurement frameworks for a myriad of verticals/service-types that the ArbitrumDAO could need in the foreseeable future. This proactive approach towards procurement will naturally aid in ensuring that projects within the Arbitrum Ecosystem have immediate access to high-quality whitelisted service providers when the need arises.” - Creation and Communication of Guidance
“The ADPC will be tasked with creating & communicating guidance notes & circulars that will substantiate & provide additional detail in relation to any procurement framework that is ratified by the ArbitrumDAO from time to time. The aim of these guidance notes & circulars is to provide prospective applicants going through the procurement process with the necessary information that would enable them to satisfactorily complete the steps of the corresponding procurement framework.”
II.3 Scope of the Report
This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the ADPC’s achievements, challenges, and learnings during its initial 6-month term (182 days), from February 21, 2024, to August 20, 2024. It serves not only as a transparent and comprehensive record of the committee’s performance and impact during the first term but also as a foundation for informed decision-making regarding the ADPC’s future role and structure within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Accordingly, the scope of this report encompasses:
- Achievements and Progress (Section III):
A detailed evaluation of the ADPC’s progress in fulfilling its mandated objectives, in particular including the development of the security-oriented service providers procurement framework and the creation of the subsidy fund proposal. - Financial Review (Section IV)
An overview of the ADPC’s budget utilization and a cost-benefit analysis of its activities during the 6-month period. - Community Engagement (Section V):
A summary of the ADPC’s interactions with the Arbitrum community, including forum discussions, feedback received and amended proposals. - Complexities (Section VI):
A thorough examination of the obstacles encountered during the ADPC’s term, ranging from infrastructural hurdles to legal and compliance complexities, and the strategies employed to address these challenges. - Key Learnings and Recommendations (Section VII):
A compilation of critical insights gained throughout the term, covering operational, legal, and governance aspects with corresponding suggestions for improving the ADPC’s operations, enhancing its effectiveness, and better serving the ecosystem’s needs in future terms. - Outlook (Section VIII):
An exploration of the ADPC’s proposed next steps, potential expansion of scope, and long-term vision for its role within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
III. Achievements and Progress
The ADPC is proud to report significant achievements and substantial progress across all areas of our mandate during our initial term. Our efforts have laid a strong foundation for efficient, transparent, and effective procurement processes within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
III.1 Security-Oriented Service Providers Procurement Framework
The development and implementation of the procurement framework for security-oriented service providers was a primary mandate for the ADPC. We are pleased to report significant progress in this mandate, with the finalization of extensive RFP documentation, the evaluation of twelve received submissions, of which we have moved 9 to the last phase of the whitelisting process subject to finalizing legal agreements and resolving a few outstanding questions, and the anticipated completion of the whitelisting process in August.
III.1.1 RFP Documentation
The ADPC has successfully implemented the RFP documentation for whitelisting security service providers. This comprehensive framework is designed to establish a marketplace for whitelisted service providers to offer services pursuant to pre-agreed terms, conditions, and pricing to projects that have been granted subsidies under the Security Services Subsidy Fund Proposal. The assembly of this framework required close collaboration with DeDaub as a security expert and the drafting of extensive legal documentation, resulting in a robust and industry-leading procurement process.
III.1.1.1 Collaboration with DeDaub as Security Expert
The decision to engage DeDaub was made following community feedback on the ADPC’s Subsidy Fund Proposal. The community highlighted the need for a SME to be involved in the process to ensure that the (i) RFP framework incorporates technical specifications in line with industry best practices and (ii) RFP responses can be evaluated in-depth on a technical level. After careful consideration and due diligence, DeDaub was selected based on their extensive experience and reputation in the field.
DeDaub’s credentials include:
- Collaborations with industry leaders such as the Ethereum Foundation, EigenLayer, Chainlink, GMX, Lido, Maple, and Pendle;
- A portfolio of over 200 audits completed for 59 clients across 14 different blockchain networks; and
- A deep understanding of the unique security challenges faced in the crypto space.
Following the affirmative Snapshot vote to compensate DeDaub with a portion of the ADPC’s existing budget for their services, DeDaub contributed to the framework as outlined in the proposal. The collaboration with DeDaub involved several key aspects:
Technical and Business Requirements Development
- Development of comprehensive technical specifications for the RFP, ensuring alignment with industry best practices and Arbitrum’s needs.
- In-depth consultations to identify critical security requirements specific to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- Creation of a detailed security assessment checklist for evaluating potential service providers.
Whitelisting Support
- Commitment to assist the ADPC in evaluating RFP responses.
- Provision of expert insights to ensure only the most qualified and reliable security service providers are whitelisted.
To ensure transparency and avoid conflicts of interest, DeDaub’s participation as the Security SME precludes them from responding to the RFP or applying to be a whitelisted security service provider.
III.1.1.2 Development of RFP Documentation
The development of the RFP documentation was an intensive, multi-stage process that involved various stakeholders and multiple rounds of refinement. The key stages included:
Initial Draft Development
- The ADPC conducted extensive research on best practices in procurement frameworks, both in traditional and crypto contexts: We drew inspiration from our experience with established strategic procurement methodologies while adapting them to the unique needs of a decentralized ecosystem.
- Multiple internal drafting sessions were held to outline the framework’s structure and key components. The draft underwent a thorough legal review to ensure compliance with relevant regulations and to mitigate potential legal risks.
Incorporation of Technical Requirements
Working closely with DeDaub, we integrated specific technical requirements into the RFP.
Legal Review and Alignment
- We worked closely with the Arbitrum Foundation’s legal team to align the legal documents with the Foundation’s policies and guidelines, involving multiple iterations and refinements.
- The close collaboration with the Arbitrum Foundation, while time-intensive, proved invaluable in ensuring that the Framework Agreement was robust, compliant, and aligned with broader ecosystem policies. This thorough process ultimately contributed to a more solid foundation for the procurement process.
Finalization
The draft underwent a final review by the ADPC, DeDaub, and the Arbitrum Foundation.
Final Documentation
The final documentation was published on June 19, 2024. It is comprised in particular of
- A comprehensive Framework Agreement (Head Agreement) to be executed between the Arbitrum Foundation and the service provider providing, among others, for pricing structures and payment terms as well as liability considerations;
- T&Cs for the engagement of service providers by projects that received a subsidy;
- An order form template designed to streamline the engagement process of the service provider; and
- Conditions of tender for service providers to access the marketplace, effectively serving as an RFP for security service providers, outlining the evaluation criteria and response format.
By implementing this comprehensive framework, the ADPC has not only fulfilled a key part of its mandate but has also set a new standard for procurement processes in the crypto space. This framework represents a significant step towards more efficient, transparent, and value-driven operations within the Arbitrum ecosystem, potentially serving as a model for other DAOs in the future.
III.1.2 Whitelisting
While the actual whitelisting of providers is still in progress, we are pleased to report significant advancements. We are currently in the review period evaluating 12 security service providers and expect to execute the agreements necessary for enabling engagement in September 2024. We have moved 9 of the 12 applicants to the last phase of the whitelisting process. The remaining tasks involve finalising legal agreements and resolving a few outstanding questions. Upon completion, the ADPC will officially announce the whitelisted security service providers.
This robust response validates our approach and promises to create a diverse panel of high-quality security service providers.
Timeline
- The application period started on June 19, 2024 and ended, after a short extension to ensure maximum participation, on July 22, 2024.
- We received applications from 12 security service providers, which validated our approach to enable competition and create a diverse panel of providers.
- The review period is currently running, scheduled to be completed in approximately 4 weeks. Together with DeDaub, the ADPC is in the process of thoroughly evaluating all applications.
- We have moved 9 of the 12 applicants to the last phase of the whitelisting process. The remaining tasks involve finalising legal agreements and resolving a few outstanding questions.
- Upon completion, the ADPC will officially announce the whitelisted security service providers.
- The execution of the framework agreements (Head Agreements) is expected to commence in September 2024.
Process
We incorporated several features to enable a fair and transparent whitelisting process, demonstrating our commitment to best practices in procurement, in particular:
Evaluation Criteria
- Developed in collaboration with DeDaub to ensure thorough assessment of technical expertise.
- Includes both quantitative scoring and qualitative assessment components.
Transparent Q&A Process
- Established a dedicated Telegram group for applicants to ask questions.
- Hosted an FAQ session during the ADPC bi-weekly call on June 27, 2024.
- All questions and answers are shared publicly to ensure a level playing field.
Tiered Approval System
- Initial screening is conducted by the ADPC, ensuring that all formal requirements are met.
- Technical evaluation is conducted by DeDaub.
- Evaluation of the other material factors, such as pricing, is conducted by the ADPC.
III.2 Subsidy Fund
We are pleased to report the successful fulfillment of our task to research and draft a proposal for a subsidy fund for security-oriented services… The development of the proposal was strongly influenced by community engagement, while the terms and conditions we drafted to receive the subsidy (’Means Test’) was mainly based on our experience gained from traditional procurement processes. Following concerns raised by voices from the community, a further proposal was prepared to set-up a sub-committee to allocate subsidies under the subsidy fund, which, however, was not approved by the community in the end.
III.2.1 Proposal Development and Approval
The development and approval process for the Subsidy Fund was a comprehensive and iterative journey, showcasing our commitment to community engagement and responsive governance. By actively engaging with the community and refining the proposal based on feedback, we were able to create a program that balances the needs of the ecosystem with responsible resource allocation.
Initial Proposal
The ADPC created the initial proposal after extensive research:
- A comprehensive benchmarking exercise with 10 leading security audit service providers was conducted to analyze costs and scope of typical security audits to determine the fund size and allocation.
- A detailed evaluation framework with weighted criteria for the ‘Means Test’ was developed.
- Timelines and procedures for application submission and review were developed.
- Checks and balances including conflict of interest provisions were established.
Based on this research, the initial proposal for the Subsidy Fund was ambitious in scope, requesting up to $10 million worth of ARB to provide financial assistance to both new and existing projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Further key terms of the initial proposal included a project allocation to fund up to 50 projects with a maximum subsidy per project of $500K (5% of the total fund) and a funding term of multiple cohorts of 8 weeks each.
Community Feedback and Iterations
Following the publication of the initial proposal, the ADPC engaged in extensive community discussions. Key points of feedback included concerns about the large fund size and potential for inefficient capital allocation and questions about the capacity to manage such a large fund.
Revised Proposal
In response to community feedback, the ADPC revised the proposal. In particular, the subsidy fund was reduced to $2.5 million worth of ARB (75% reduction) to potentially fund up to 12 projects (and, depending on demand and size of the subsidies, even more) for one cohort of 8 weeks and with a maximum subsidy per project of $250K (10% of the total fund). The fund size reduction and, accordingly, the reduction of the supported projects and cohorts, allowed for a more focused and manageable pilot program, enabling a more intensive selection and monitoring process for funded projects as well as potential adjustments based on learnings from the initial cohort.
Approval Process
The revised proposal was put to a Snapshot vote on April 25, 2024, where it successfully passed with community support. The on-chain vote, requesting a total of $2.65 million worth of ARB to ensure an operating buffer, was passed on July 21, 2024, with the consent of 99.53% of the votes. The gap of 3 months between the Snapshot and Tally votes was primarily due to the ADPC acting on community feedback regarding the Sub-Committee, which is discussed in further detail in Section III.2.3 below, and the need to focus time and resources on the creation of the Procurement Framework outlined in Section III.1 above.
III.2.2 Terms and Conditions, in particular Means Test
The development of the Terms and Conditions for applicants and the creation of a comprehensive means test were crucial components in establishing a fair, transparent, and effective subsidy fund.
Terms and Conditions for Applicants
The ADPC developed a comprehensive set of Terms and Conditions for applicants seeking funding under the subsidy fund. The provisions were drafted with a view in particular to:
- establish clear eligibility criteria, focusing on projects that contribute to the Arbitrum ecosystem’s growth;
- outline the application process, detailing the two-stage application process with initial screening and in-depth review;
- define fund usage and reporting requirements, stipulating that funds must be used exclusively for security audits from whitelisted providers and establishing regular reporting schedules to monitor the compliance; and
- set accountability measures, including clawback provisions for non-compliance.
The documents underwent multiple rounds of review, including legal vetting to ensure consistency with the marketplace rules established under the Whitelisting process and the broader remit of the ADPC’s mandate.
Creation of Means Test
The Means Test was developed as a structured approach to evaluate applications for financial assistance. The creation of the Means Test represented a significant effort to balance quantitative and qualitative assessments: The primary goal was to identify applicants who would benefit most from support with the potential for significant positive impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem while ensuring equitable access to subsidies within the Arbitrum Ecosystem. The assessments had to recognize that many promising projects, especially smaller ones, might not have immediately measurable metrics.
For this assessment, we developed a sophisticated scoring system:
- Developed a scoring system with a 1-5 rating scale and assigned weights to criteria based on importance.
- Developed four main criteria categories, each with weighted sub-criteria: Arbitrum Ecosystem Contribution, Business Model & Need for the Subsidy, Financial Analysis and a Risk Analysis.
- Based on community feedback, we further identified key verticals that are particularly valuable to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- Implemented a two-stage evaluation process, with an initial screening focused on the five highest-weighted sub-criteria before conducting an in-depth review with a comprehensive evaluation of all criteria for top-scoring applicants.
The ADPC has decided not to share the scoring of unsuccessful applicants against the Means Test publicly to avoid reputational concerns for those projects, and has decided to share scoring of successful applicants publicly subject to their approval.
III.2.3 Governance Discussions regarding Sub-Committee
As already outlined above, we witnessed exemplary community engagement throughout the development and implementation of the subsidy fund.
Initial Proposal and Community Response
When the ADPC first proposed the subsidy fund, it was designed to be administered directly by the committee. This initial proposal sparked community discussion with the following key concerns raised by the community
- Potential centralization of power within the ADPC;
- Questions about the ADPC’s capacity to manage both procurement and subsidy distribution;
- The need for specialized expertise in security services.
Sub-Committee Proposal
The ADPC translated those community concerns into a concrete governance proposal: In response to these community concerns, a proposal was put forward to create a separate “Security Services Subsidy Fund Sub-committee”, consisting of five members elected through a weighted voting system and a compensation of 60,000 ARB in total.
Discussion and Voting Process
The sub-committee proposal underwent extensive community discussions with community members voicing concerns and suggestions and the ADPC addressing various aspects of the proposal, in particular:
- potential delays in subsidy distribution due to the additional election and onboarding process;
- the risk of fragmenting responsibilities and creating inefficiencies; and
- the importance of maintaining alignment with the broader procurement strategy.
Ultimately, after thorough discussion, the community voted against the creation of the sub-committee, leaving the disbursement of funds under the subsidy fund to the ADPC and demonstrating the community’s trust in the ADPC’s ability to manage the fund effectively and efficiently.
III.3 Future Procurement Frameworks
While the primary focus of the ADPC during its initial term was the development and implementation of the security service provider procurement framework and the associated subsidy fund, we also made significant progress in laying the groundwork for future procurement frameworks. This forward-thinking approach demonstrates our commitment to long-term value creation for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Our focus on establishing a robust foundation for the ADPC’s current and future procurement activities was crucial, consuming a significant portion of our resources and time. This investment in foundational work will pay dividends in the efficiency and effectiveness of future procurement initiatives.
Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of planning for the future, the ADPC has conducted valuable preliminary work to identify and prioritize potential verticals for future procurement frameworks. Our approach was to create a comprehensive and adaptable methodology that could be applied to various service categories, ensuring that future frameworks would be developed with a robust approach.
Methodology
In order to identify the verticals that will be most beneficial for the ADPC to tackle in Phase II, we created a non-weighted scoring system to rate all verticals against the following factors:
Importance to Projects on Arbitrum
This factor takes into account the importance of the vertical with respect to the following criteria: - Frequency of use of the vertical by Projects;
- Estimated spend under the vertical;
- Feedback from Arbitrum stakeholders regarding importance of vertical to Arbitrum ecosystem growth; and
- The extent to which the Procurement Framework (PF) vertical helps make the process of building on Arbitrum, both for existing and new projects, more streamlined, cost-effective, and attractive, while simplifying and standardizing their engagement with service providers.
Higher ratings indicate higher levels of importance.
Importance to DAO Proposals & Initiatives
The extent to which the PF solves issues faced by existing DAO proposals and initiatives, helps operationalize them, and increases their chances of success. Higher ratings indicate higher levels of importance.
Solving Existing DAO Needs
The extent to which the PF solves issues faced by the DAO in general, and how significantly the PF will help professionalize and operationalize the DAO further. Higher ratings indicate higher levels of utility to the DAO.
Overlap with Existing DAO Initiatives / Structure
There are initiatives in the DAO or from the Foundation that are already tackling the problem solved by the PF. The ranking will take into account how well the PF vertical avoids overlap/duplication. Higher scores indicate PF is better at avoiding overlap/duplication.
Procurement Complexity / Cost
The complexity of constructing the procurement framework and the cost to do so. Higher ratings indicate lower complexity.
Monetary Savings for Projects on Arbitrum
This criterion evaluates cost savings for projects on Arbitrum resulting from an implementation of the respective PF. Higher ratings indicate greater cost savings.
Monetary Savings for DAO
This criterion evaluates cost savings for the DAO resulting from an implementation of the respective PF. Higher ratings indicate greater cost savings.
Increase in Deployment Efficiency
This criterion evaluates the extent to which an introduction of the PF makes deployment for new projects more efficient. The greater the efficiency improvements, the higher the rating.
Each of these factors are rated on a scale of 0 (Not Applicable at All), 1 (Low), 2 (Medium), 3 (High), and higher scores are better.
Note: Some of these factors are not applicable to some verticals. As such, the final score for each vertical is the percentage it has achieved, to enable comparability between verticals. For example, if the Events vertical has 6 factors that are applicable to it, the maximum score it can achieve is 18 and its final score is the percentage of the score it has achieved out of 18, so if it has achieved 17, its final score is 94%.
Application of Methodology to Frameworks
We identified 27 verticals that we could potentially tackle in Phase II. The below table represents the scores per vertical with the methodology applied, in order from highest to lowest. For a detailed breakdown of the application of the methodology with rationales for each individual score, please see the table here.
| Vertical | Score |
|---|---|
| Events | 94% |
| Tokenomics & Token Launch Teams | 91% |
| DevRel Firms | 91% |
| OTC Services | 88% |
| KYC Providers | 86% |
| Risk Service Providers | 86% |
| RPC Providers | 81% |
| Marketing | 79% |
| Oracle Services | 76% |
| API Providers | 76% |
| Node Management Software | 71% |
| Transaction Monitoring & Analytics Tools | 63% |
| Identity Management | 62% |
| BD / Partnerships Team | 58% |
| Human Resourcing | 58% |
| Cloud Providers | 52% |
| Design / UI / UX | 48% |
| Reporting Tools / Dashboards / Analytics | 42% |
| Trademarks / Patents / IP Registrations & Defence | 38% |
| Treasury Management Services | 38% |
| Legal Firms Panel | 33% |
| Training / Education Providers | 29% |
| R&D | 29% |
| Smart Contract Developers | 29% |
| Lobby / Industry Groups | 25% |
| Travel Providers | 22% |
| Policy Development | 21% |
The verticals we selected to obtain further feedback on from high-context delegates, existing projects on Arbitrum, and new projects looking to build on Arbitrum, were those with scores >80% and constitute the below verticals:
- Events
- Tokenomics & Token Launch Teams
- DevRel Firms
- OTC Services
- KYC Providers
- RPC Providers
Note:
We did not initially include Risk Service Providers in the list of verticals since these were already available to the DAO via the ARDC. As such, we did not ask for specific feedback from delegates and stakeholders for this vertical.
However, given that the ARDC may eliminate this function in its next iteration, we decided to include it in our list and, as it scored very highly, include it in the list of verticals to potentially tackle in Phase II.
Community Engagement & Feedback Collection
After shortlisting the top six verticals, we decided to validate the shortlisted verticals with high-context delegates, existing Arbitrum projects, and new projects aiming to build on Arbitrum. The intention was to further narrow down the verticals to the two we would tackle in Phase II.
We reached out to 25 stakeholders for feedback: L2Beat, Coinflip, GMX, DK, Gauntlet, Wintermute, Griff Green, Blockworks, Frisson, JoJo, Jones DAO, Pepperoni Jo3, Treasure, Camelot, Cattin, Premia, MUX Protocol, MaxLomu, Bob Rossi, Karpatkey, Princeton Blockchain Club, Bobbay, Angle Protocol, Merkl, and PaperImperium.
Based on our interactions with the community, we decided to move forward with the procurement of RPC providers as the first vertical. This is because RPC costs are high, RPCs are critical for projects to deploy, similar to security audits, and technical due diligence around infrastructure providers is a complex task that drains time and resources from projects. As such, creating a panel of whitelisted RPC providers streamlines the building process for projects.
In addition, we locked in ‘Events’ as a second vertical. The reason for this is that we spoke with Entropy Advisors about the need for a coherent events strategy for Arbitrum DAO, which is also apparent from the multiple concurrent events proposals being proposed in the DAO. As a result, we decided to create a proposal alongside Entropy Advisors and DisruptionJoe to establish a DAO Events Strategy for 2025, which will be published soon. While the proposal on the DAO Events Strategy for 2025 is focused on defining in particular the type and distribution of events as a first step, event services and event providers have to be procured in a second step to execute on the identified strategy. This second step, i.e., the provision of those procurement services for the identified events, is the subject of this procurement framework.
Future Work
The corresponding extension proposal, which will provide an in-depth look at prioritized verticals, our proposed workflow, and the expected outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem, will be published soon.
III.4 Creation and Communication of Guidance
The ADPC achieved its goal of keeping the community abreast of its activities and progress during the entirety of its first phase by:
- Setting up a bi-weekly one hour call on the Arbitrum governance calendar to engage with delegates and community members;
- Establishing a dedicated dashboard including the Meeting Minutes of each week’s internal ADPC standing meeting and the ADPC’s current task list;
- Creating a dedicated Telegram channel to communicate with RFP applicants;
- Scheduling two AMA sessions to field and answer queries from RFP applicants; and
- Publishing a forum post explaining how the entire Procurement Framework operates.
III.5 Operational Establishment as Additional Accomplishment
Something as seemingly trivial as the setup of infrastructure and tools becomes a challenge when the team is decentralized and no pre-existing systems are tailored for DAO committees.
III.5.1. Infrastructure Setup
As a globally dispersed team, we faced the task of creating our operational framework from the ground up.
Key aspects of our infrastructure setup include:
- Communication channels
Establishing secure and efficient means of internal communication among ADPC members and external communication with the Arbitrum community. - Document management
Creating a system for storing, organizing, and sharing critical documents related to procurement frameworks, meeting minutes, and operational guidelines. - Task management
Implementing a system to track progress on various tasks, assign responsibilities, and manage deadlines. - Reporting mechanisms
Developing standardized formats for regular reports to the DAO, including monthly performance updates and bi-weekly call summaries.
III.5.2 Tool Selection and Implementation
After careful consideration, we implemented a suite of tools that enable efficient, transparent, and collaborative work:
- Notion
Chosen as our primary collaboration site and document repository, used to track tasks, subtasks, and overall progress. We established a public Notion dashboard to maintain transparency with the Arbitrum community. - Google Workspace
Utilized for additional document storage and collaboration, particularly for internal ADPC use and to store and share the legal documents needed for service providers as well as subsidy applicants. - Zoom and Google Meet
Selected for hosting our bi-weekly community calls and internal ADPC meetings. - Gmail
Selected as our official external communication channel to receive and send submissions and applications. We also established an email address for the ADPC under ‘arbitrumdaoprocurementcommitte@gmail.com’. - Telegram
Selected as our low-friction external communication channel for service providers, applicants, and community members to clarify questions and be in dialogue with the community. - AI
The ADPC explored various AI tools to improve productivity during Phase I however many of the deliverables produced by the ADPC both in Phase I and II require extensive legal drafting and bespoke report production that is currently outside the limits of existing AI platforms. The ADPC remains open to the use AI tools where cost effective to do so.
IV. Financial Overview
IV.1 Budget Utilization
| Payment Dates | Axis Advisory | Areta | Daimon Legal | Multi-Sig [5 Signers] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22nd March | ARB5,000 | ARB5,000 | ARB5,000 | ARB1,000 (each) |
| 21st April | ARB7,476 | ARB7,476 | ARB7,476 | ARB1,000 (each) |
| 21st May | ARB6,612 | ARB6,612 | ARB6,612 | ARB1,000 (each) |
| 20th June | ARB10,000 | ARB10,000 | ARB10,000 | ARB1,000 (each) |
| 20th July | ARB10,390 | ARB10,390 | ARB10,390 | ARB1,000 (each) |
| 19th August | ARB13,188 | ARB13,188 | ARB13,188 | ARB1,000 (each) |
Relevant Links
V. Community Engagement
V.1 Summary of Community Interactions
Throughout its initial term, the ADPC prioritized active engagement with the Arbitrum community, fostering a culture of transparency and collaboration. Our interactions included:
- Bi-weekly Community Calls
We conducted regular open calls where community members could ask questions, provide feedback, and stay updated on our progress. Recording links for all our bi-weekly calls can be found in the ADPC Update Thread. - Forum Discussions
We initiated and participated in numerous forum threads, answering and reacting to community questions. - Snapshot Votes
We put forward proposals for community voting, the engagement of DeDaub as a security expert as well as the establishment of a sub-committee for fund allocations. - Telegram Group
We created a dedicated Telegram group for the security service provider whitelisting process, facilitating real-time communication with potential applicants. - Public Dashboard
We published detailed task trackers as well as meeting minutes on our Notion dashboard, ensuring transparency in our operations. - Direct Stakeholder Outreach
We conducted surveys and direct outreach to high-context delegates, DAO initiative leaders, and projects building on Arbitrum to validate our procurement framework priorities.
V.2 Key Feedback Received
The community provided valuable input throughout our term. Key feedback included:
- Subsidy Fund Structure
There were concerns about the initial proposed fund size and suggestions to focus on more specific verticals aligned with Arbitrum’s strategic priorities. - Governance Centralization
Some community members expressed concerns about potential centralization of power within the ADPC, particularly regarding the management of the subsidy fund. - Procurement Framework Priorities
We received suggestions for additional verticals to consider for procurement frameworks. - Collaboration with Other Initiatives
Feedback emphasized the importance of aligning our work with other ongoing DAO initiatives to avoid duplication of efforts. - Expert Involvement
There was strong support for involving subject matter experts in our processes.
V.3 Implemented Suggestions
Demonstrating our commitment to responsive, community-driven governance, we implemented several community suggestions:
- Revised Subsidy Fund Proposal
We significantly reduced the proposed fund size from $10 million to $2.5 million worth of ARB and focused on more specific verticals (RWAs & Tokenization and Stylus Adoption). - Governance Centralization
We created a corresponding proposal and put the establishment of a sub-committee to vote. - Procurement Framework Priorities
We developed a scoring mechanism for prioritizing future procurement frameworks. - Collaboration with Other Initiatives
We initiated conversations with other DAO initiatives (e.g., BlockScience) to ensure our work complemented existing efforts. - Expert Involvement
We onboarded DeDaub as a security SME.
VI. Complexities
Being a first-mover in setting up procurement frameworks in the DAO space presented unique challenges, as we could not build on top of precedents but had to develop everything from the ground up. While this presented obstacles, it also provided opportunities for innovation and setting new standards in decentralized procurement.
VI.1 Legal and Compliance
The ADPC encountered several legal and compliance complexities, primarily stemming from the lack of a formal legal entity to operate the ADPC:
- Legal exposure and lack of liability protection
Committee members faced potential legal action from both service providers (sellers) and subsidy recipients (buyers) due to the absence of a protective legal structure. - Potential claims
The committee identified risks of claims related to bias/negligence during the whitelisting process, discrimination against sellers, breach of confidentiality, and buyer losses due to reliance on whitelisted providers. - Compliance uncertainties
The absence of clear guidance on regulatory and operational risk areas from the Arbitrum Foundation created uncertainties in decision-making processes.
VI.2 Document Retention and IP Management
The ADPC identified significant gaps in document retention and IP management:
- Long-term retention needs
Some of the ADPC’s work requires long-term retention for potential future litigation or disputes, but no clear policy existed for preserving important materials and intellectual property after the conclusion of the ADPC’s term or specific projects. - Ownership ambiguity
The lack of contributor license agreements led to uncertainty about the ownership of IP, trademarks, and potential protectable inventions developed during the ADPC’s work. - Inconsistent storage
The use of a combination of personal and newly acquired accounts for document storage created potential issues for long-term access and management of sensitive information.
VI.3 Alignment with Arbitrum Foundation
The alignment with the Arbitrum Foundation was more time intensive than initially expected. However, our close cooperation led to improved communication and collaboration.
- Engagement model
The process for engaging with the Arbitrum Foundation was not well-defined initially, making it challenging to determine what an acceptable legal framework would look like until later in the process. This was addressed by developing private communication channels directly with the Foundation’s legal team. - Redundant legal work
As there was urgency to launch the tenders and subsidy fund programs, significant time was initially spent developing legal terms that were redundant due to the Arbitrum Foundation having its own preferred model terms. Once the engagement model was established (as mentioned above), the ADPC and Foundation were able to expedite many of the legal documents required to effect the ADPC’s mandate and minimise unnecessary duplication.
VI.4 Resource and Time Constraints
The ADPC encountered significant resource and time constraints during its initial term, highlighting the need for a more robust operational structure and increased personnel:
- Complex and dynamic mandate
The complexity and dynamic of the ADPC’s mandate, combining multiple proposals such as the security service provider procurement frameworks and the subsidy fund into one tangible work stream, proved to be more time-consuming than initially anticipated and led to a strain on the existing team’s capacity. - Insufficient full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel
As the scope and challenges of the work became apparent, it was clear that the initial staffing was inadequate. More FTE personnel were needed to effectively manage the workload, particularly in areas such as legal research, community engagement, and technical documentation. This realization has informed our future planning, allowing us to better estimate resource needs for upcoming projects. - Unexpected community engagement demands
The high level of community input and discussion, especially surrounding the subsidy fund, required significantly more time and resources for management and response than initially planned. While demanding, this engagement demonstrated the vibrant and active nature of the Arbitrum community, and ultimately led to stronger, more community-aligned outcomes. - Focus shift to security framework
The complexity of developing the security service provider procurement framework and associated subsidy fund consumed a significant amount of the committee’s resources. While this necessary focus left limited capacity for work on additional procurement frameworks, it resulted in a robust and comprehensive security framework that sets a strong precedent for future work. - Limited budget for external expertise
The inability to easily bring in external experts for specific tasks or consultations due to budget constraints limited the ADPC’s ability to address complex issues efficiently, particularly in areas requiring specialized knowledge. However, this constraint fostered creative problem-solving and knowledge-sharing within the team. - Operational setup time
A significant portion of the committee’s initial term was spent on setting up basic operational infrastructure, which detracted from time that could have been spent on core mandate activities. While time-consuming, this investment in infrastructure has laid a strong foundation for more efficient operations in future terms.
VII. Key Learnings and Recommendations
Drawing from our experience during the ADPC’s first term, we have identified several key learnings and translated them into recommendations for future terms. These insights will not only enhance the ADPC’s ability to deliver greater value to the DAO but also serve as a valuable resource for other DAO committees with external exposure. Given the amount and, in individual cases, complexities in implementing those learnings, the implementation process will start in Phase II and be completed over time through following terms. We will outline in future outcome reports to what extent individual learnings and recommendations have been implemented.
VII.1 Operational
The ADPC’s initial term has provided invaluable insights into the operational requirements for effectively managing procurement processes within a DAO ecosystem. These learnings form the basis for our recommendations to improve future operations and increase their efficiency:
Infrastructure Setup and Standardization
Learning
The lack of pre-existing infrastructure led to significant delays and inefficiencies.
Recommendation
The DAO should introduce a setup to provide essential tools and infrastructure before the commencement of new teams’ / committees’ term. This includes:
- Establishing centralized accounts for email, collaboration platforms, and document management systems.
- Creating standardized templates and workflows for common processes.
- Implementing a unified branding and communication strategy across all tools and platforms.
Resource Allocation and Staffing
Learning
The initial staffing and budget were insufficient to handle the workload and unexpected challenges.
Recommendation
Future iterations of the ADPC should:
- Allocate budget for specialized external consultants to address complex issues efficiently.
- Build in budget flexibility to accommodate unexpected challenges and community engagement needs.
Document Retention and IP Management
Learning
The absence of clear policies for document retention and IP management posed significant risks.
Recommendation
Implement comprehensive document retention and IP management policies, including:
- Establishing a centralized, secure document repository for long-term storage of critical information.
- Developing clear guidelines for document classification and retention periods.
- Implementing contributor license agreements to clarify IP ownership and usage rights.
- Creating a separate legal entity to hold and manage IP for the benefit of the entire ecosystem (along the lines of the DAI Foundation for Maker DAO which acts as custodian for important intellectual property, trademarks and software).
Community Engagement and Transparency
Learning
Community engagement was more time-consuming than anticipated but crucial for the success of initiatives.
Recommendation
Develop a structured approach to community engagement:
- Allocate dedicated resources for community management and communication.
- Establish regular, scheduled updates and feedback sessions.
- Implement a clear process for incorporating community input into decision-making.
Collaboration with Arbitrum Foundation
Learning
Alignment with the Arbitrum Foundation was crucial but time-consuming.
Recommendation
Establish clearer protocols for collaboration with the Arbitrum Foundation:
- Establish regular check-in meetings with Foundation representatives to ensure ongoing alignment.
- Develop a streamlined process for legal review and feedback, with clear timelines and expectations.
Scalability and Future-Proofing
Learning
The initial structure of the ADPC was not easily scalable to handle increased workload or additional procurement frameworks.
Recommendation
Design a more flexible and scalable operational structure:
- Develop modular processes that can be easily adapted for different types of procurement frameworks.
- Create a “framework of frameworks” that allows for easier addition and management of new procurement verticals.
- Implement automation where possible to increase efficiency and reduce manual workload.
Budget Planning and Management
Learning
The initial budget did not adequately account for all necessary resources and unexpected challenges.
Recommendation
Implement more comprehensive budget planning and management:
- Include contingency funds for unexpected challenges or opportunities.
- Implement regular budget reviews and establish clear processes for budget adjustments and approvals during the term.
VII.2 Legal and Compliance
The ADPC’s first term revealed several critical legal and compliance challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the smooth operation and risk mitigation for future procurement initiatives. Our key learnings and recommendations in this respect are the following:
Legal Entity Formation
Learning
The lack of a formal legal entity exposed individual ADPC members to potential legal risks and limited the committee’s ability to enter into binding agreements.
Recommendation
Establish a dedicated legal entity for procurement activities:
- Create a low-cost limited liability entity specifically for ADPC operations.
- Ensure the entity structure allows for easy addition and removal of directors/employees to accommodate DAO decisions and elections.
- Implement clear oversight and reporting mechanisms to the DAO regarding budget use and operational activities.
- Design the entity to be solely focused on Arbitrum DAO procurement to avoid conflicts of interest.
Liability Protection
Learning
ADPC members can face potential legal action from both service providers and subsidy recipients due to the absence of a protective legal structure.
Recommendation
Implement comprehensive liability protection measures:
- Obtain appropriate insurance coverage for the ADPC entity and its members.
- Develop standardized indemnification agreements for ADPC members.
- Create clear guidelines and processes for handling potential disputes or claims.
Compliance with Regulatory Requirements
Learning
Uncertainty around regulatory compliance, particularly in areas like KYC/AML and fund management created operational challenges.
Recommendation
Develop a clear compliance framework:
- Engage legal experts to conduct a comprehensive regulatory review of ADPC activities.
- Establish clear compliance guidelines for each area of ADPC operations.
- Implement regular compliance training for ADPC members and relevant stakeholders.
- Create a process for ongoing monitoring and updating of compliance requirements.
Alignment of Legal Agreements
Learning
The development of legal terms was often redundant or misaligned with Arbitrum Foundation preferences, leading to inefficiencies.
Recommendation
Streamline the contract development process:
- Work closely with the Arbitrum Foundation to develop a set of pre-approved contract templates.
- Establish a clear process for contract customization and approval.
- Implement a contract management system to track and manage all agreements. The ADPC’s investigation into suitable solutions in the first weeks of the engagement concluded that no current market offerings support Web3 operations so this remains an open issue until suitable solutions are identified.
Intellectual Property Management
Learning
The absence of clear IP management policies created uncertainty around ownership and usage rights.
Recommendation
Implement comprehensive IP management policies:
- Develop contributor license agreements for all parties involved in ADPC activities.
- Create clear guidelines for IP ownership, usage, and licensing within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- Establish a separate foundation or entity to hold and manage IP for the benefit of the entire ecosystem.
Data Protection and Privacy
Learning
The handling of sensitive information in procurement processes raised concerns about data protection and privacy.
Recommendation
Implement robust data protection measures:
- Develop comprehensive data protection and privacy policies aligned with global standards (e.g., GDPR).
- Implement secure data handling and storage processes.
- Provide regular training on data protection best practices for all ADPC members and relevant stakeholders.
VII.3 Governance and Community Engagement
The ADPC gained valuable insights into the complexities of governance and community engagement within a DAO ecosystem. These learnings will lead to more effective decision-making, increased community trust, and ultimately, a stronger and more resilient Arbitrum ecosystem. To enhance future operations, we recommend the following:
Community Input and Decision-Making
Learning
The high level of community engagement, particularly around the subsidy fund, demonstrated both the value and challenges of decentralized decision-making.
Recommendation
Implement a structured approach to community input:
- Detailed proposals that address potential concerns proactively are particularly valuable.
- Develop a clear framework for community proposals and feedback including formal feedback loops.
- Provide the community with detailed information about alternative strategies, allowing for educated voting.
- Create a system for rapid response to urgent community concerns or suggestions.
Transparency and Reporting
Learning
Regular, transparent communication was crucial for maintaining community trust and engagement. However, given the complex history and combination of multiple proposals into one work stream, the already high level of communication could be improved even more.
Recommendation
Enhance transparency measures:
- Establish a standardized reporting schedule, including bi-weekly updates, monthly reports, and quarterly reviews.
- Improve the public dashboard to provide more comprehensive information about the ADPC and show even more real-time progress updates.
Onboarding and Education
Learning
The complexity of procurement processes often require significant education for community members to engage effectively.
Recommendation
Enhance community education efforts:
- Develop comprehensive onboarding materials for community members interested in ADPC activities.
- Host regular educational workshops and Q&A sessions on procurement-related topics.
Cross-DAO Collaboration
Learning
Opportunities for learning from and collaborating with other DAOs were not fully utilized, mainly, however, due to the lack of existing procurement-focused groups in other DAOs.
Recommendation
Foster inter-DAO relationships:
- Establish regular communication channels with procurement-focused groups in other DAOs.
- Implement a system for sharing best practices and lessons learned with the broader DAO ecosystem.
VII.4 Process Optimization
The ADPC’s initial term revealed several areas where processes could be streamlined and optimized for greater efficiency and effectiveness. The key learnings and recommendations for process optimization are:
Standardization of Procurement Documents
Learning
The development of the security service provider procurement documents and the subsidy fund documentation was time-consuming and resource-intensive.
Recommendation
Slightly adapt the documentation to create a modular, reusable framework and subsidy fund template:
- Develop a standardized “framework of frameworks” that can be easily adapted for different service verticals.
- Create templated documents for RFPs, evaluation criteria, and contracts that can be quickly customized for specific needs.
Automation of Routine Tasks
Learning
Many administrative tasks consumed significant time that could have been better spent on strategic activities.
Recommendation
Implement automation tools and processes:
- Develop or adopt software and AI solutions for automating routine tasks such as document generation, scheduling, and basic communication.
- Create automated reporting tools and AI solutions to streamline the creation of regular updates and progress reports.
Long-term Vision and Strategy
Learning
The focus on immediate operational needs sometimes overshadowed long-term strategic planning.
Recommendation
Implement processes for long-term governance planning:
- Create a system for community input on long-term strategic direction.
- Establish KPIs for measuring the long-term impact of ADPC initiatives on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Streamlined Evaluation Processes
Learning
The evaluation of service providers is a complex and time-consuming process.
Recommendation
Optimize the evaluation methodology:
- Implement a multi-stage evaluation process to quickly filter out unsuitable candidates before conducting in-depth assessments.
Integration with Existing DAO Infrastructure
Learning
There were inefficiencies in how the ADPC’s work integrated with other DAO processes and initiatives.
Recommendation
Enhance integration and interoperability:
- Work with other DAO committees to develop standardized integration points for shared data and processes.
- Implement a unified project management system that allows for easy tracking and coordination across different DAO initiatives.
- Develop clear protocols for how ADPC processes interact with other DAO functions.
Scalability Planning
Learning
Some processes that worked well at a small scale became bottlenecks as the workload increased.
Recommendation
Design processes with scalability in mind:
- Conduct regular capacity planning exercises to anticipate future needs.
- Design processes that can easily accommodate increased volume without significant restructuring.
Knowledge Management and Transfer
Learning
A lack of a structured knowledge management system will make it difficult to retain institutional knowledge.
Recommendation
Implement a comprehensive knowledge management system
- Develop a searchable repository for all ADPC documentation, decisions, and processes.
- Create detailed process maps and standard operating procedures for all key ADPC activities.
- Implement a structured onboarding process for new ADPC members or contributors.
Vendor Management Optimization
Learning
Managing relationships with multiple service providers across different verticals presented challenges.
Recommendation
Develop a comprehensive vendor management system:
- Implement a vendor database with detailed profiles, performance metrics, and contract information.
- Develop standardized processes for vendor onboarding, performance evaluation, and offboarding.
- Create a tiered vendor classification system to streamline engagement based on the criticality and frequency of services.
VII.5 Collaboration with Arbitrum Foundation
Highlighting the critical importance of effective collaboration with the Arbitrum Foundation, the following are the key learnings and recommendations for improving this crucial relationship:
Clear Communication Channels
Learning
The lack of established communication protocols led to delays and misunderstandings.
Recommendation
Implement structured communication processes to enhance collaboration:
- Designate specific points of contact within both the ADPC and the Arbitrum Foundation for different areas of collaboration (e.g., legal, technical, strategic).
- Establish regular check-in meetings between ADPC leadership and Arbitrum Foundation representatives.
- Implement a clear escalation path for urgent matters or deadlocks.
Alignment of Legal Frameworks
Learning
Significant time was lost developing legal terms that were later found to be redundant or misaligned with the Arbitrum Foundation’s preferred model terms.
Recommendation
Establish a collaborative legal framework development process to improve efficiency:
- Develop a mechanism for early Foundation review.
- Initiate early and regular consultations with the Foundation’s legal team when developing new frameworks or agreements.
- Enhance the joint review process for all major legal documents before finalization and create a streamlined process for Foundation sign-off on key procurement documentation.
Resource Sharing and Support
Learning
There were further opportunities to leverage the Foundation’s resources and expertise.
Recommendation
Establish a framework for resource sharing to maximize efficiency and expertise:
- Enhance the process for the ADPC to request support or resources from the Foundation when needed.
- Explore opportunities for shared staffing or expertise in specialized areas.
VIII. Outlook
As the ADPC’s initial term nears its conclusion, we are excited to share our outlook for the future and the key initiatives we propose to undertake in the next term. The details of these plans will be comprehensively outlined in the ADPC’s extension proposal, which will be published shortly. This section aims to provide a high-level overview of the work in progress in regards to the extension.
In this Phase II, the ADPC, after careful alignment with key stakeholders in the DAO, will propose to work in particular on the following:
Procurement for two tactical verticals
- Vertical 1 will be focused on procuring RPC providers for projects building in the Arbitrum ecosystem. This decision is based on engagement with delegates and stakeholders as well as an understanding of the core services required by all projects looking to build in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- Vertical 2 will be focused on providing the procurement services for events identified within the DAO Events Strategy for 2025. This event strategy is prepared by the ADPC, Entropy Advisors and Disruption Joe pursuant to a separate proposal.
- The scope within the 6-month term is to develop evaluation criteria, draft and publish the Approach to Market (RFP/tender), evaluate responses to Approach to Market and whitelist supplier/s. Contract negotiations with whitelisted suppliers are not in the scope as the counter-party may be the Arbitrum Foundation or third parties utilizing their own counsel, and the ADPC has no influence on those internal legal processes.
Subsidy Fund for Security Services
We will continue the management of the Subsidy Fund for Security Services.
Operational Expense Budget
Definition of an Operational Expense (OpEx) budget for the Arbitrum DAO, allocated towards the utilisation of service providers as whitelisted by the ADPC.
IX. Appendices
IX.1 Legal Documents
IX.2 Forum Links
- Proposal to establish the Security Service Providers Procurement Framework here
- Proposal to establish the ADPC here
- Proposal to establish the Subsidy Fund here
- Update Forum Post here
- Proposal to add DeDaub to the ADPC to support on whitelisting security service providers here
- RFP Security Providers here
- Proposal to set up a sub-committee for the Subsidy Fund here
IX.3 Snapshot & Tally Vote Links
- Snapshot vote to establish the Security Service Providers Procurement Framework here
- Tally vote to establish the ADPC here
- Snapshot vote to establish the Subsidy Fund here
- Tally vote to establish the Subsidy Fund here
- Snapshot vote to add DeDaub here
- Snapshot vote to set up a sub-committee for the Subsidy Fund here
IX.4 Calls, Dashboard, Transactions
IX.5 ADPC Members
Axis Advisory
Axis Advisory is a DeFi-focused lawfirm specialising in corporate, legal and regulatory advisory. Its services consist of 4 main verticals targeting:
- Governance Contributions [Axis Advisory is a member of the dYdX Operations Team, created the Arbitrum Research & Development Collective and the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee of which it is a member, and is developing Arbitrum’s Optimistic Governance Module];
- Legal Advisory [Axis Advisory advises clients in various Ecosystems such as Arbitrum, Berachain, Bitcoin, Ethereum and Cosmos on ongoing legal matters such as drafting and negotiating commercial agreements, legal administration of capital raising rounds, and ongoing corporate advisory];
- Regulatory risk identification, assessment and mitigation [Axis Advisory specialises in providing comprehensive regulatory advisory & regulatory risk mitigation services, assisting clients in navigating complex regulatory landscapes to ensure compliance with evolving industry standards. Axis, being an EU registered lawfirm, naturally offers services in relation to the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation];
- Asset Valuations [Axis Advisory’s hybrid capital raising methodology aids clients attribute a fair, quantitative data-driven methodology to their capital raising round].
Areta
Areta Governance specializes in helping foundations and DAOs establish and grow decentralized governance structures. We develop tailored solutions in governance inception and optimization, ecosystem growth, and service provider selection. Our connected investment bank with deep strategic expertise, enables us to serve our partners holistically, rather than working in isolated governance silos.
We have had the privilege to work alongside industry leaders such as Uniswap, Arbitrum, Safe, Aave, and dYdX.
Daimon Legal
A veteran and OG across crypto, DeFi and Web3 platforms, Daimon Legal provides support to a wide range of clients and is active in key legal and crypto communities including LexDAO, LexPunks and LobsterDAO. Daimon Legal provides advice on a range of issues including company incorporations, structuring, capital raising, NFTs, GameFi, intellectual property rights and all types of legal documentation, contracts and terms of service including many of the procurement and RFP terms used by the ADPC.
We are proud to have supported Tier 1 DeFi protocols including Maker DAO and Arbitrum. The Principal of the firm, Paul Imseih has been a board member of several DeFi projects, and is currently a board member of the DAI Foundation and a committee member of the ADPC.