We must have missed this survey somehow but thank you for this research! Something like the framework suggested would definitely help us with the technical proposals that come up. It’s interesting that from the examples that were looked at, the chains had better support for delegates on these kinds of proposals than the protocols. We think that sets a higher bar for us to meet as well, since those are our real competitors.
Pulling a couple things out of the report:
from 1.3.2. Limitations of Existing Approaches:
Despite the open governance process and public repositories, there is currently no dedicated track, onboarding path, or support system tailored for external contributors looking to submit technical Arbitrum Improvement Proposals or modify core smart contract infrastructure.
Additionally, roles and responsibilities for critical steps such as code review, integration testing, and technical approval are often undefined or implicit. Contributors must rely on informal relationships or community goodwill to obtain feedback, guidance, or alignment with core stakeholders, such as Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation. In some cases, teams have proceeded with audits and development without receiving any confirmation that the DAO would consider the upgrade. This was the case with the proposal for Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router. Due to the lack of clear guidance from Offchain Labs, delegates were uncertain about the feasibility of the implementation.
from 4.1.1.1. Lessons from Optimism: The Developer Advisory Board:
Optimism has pioneered a structured approach to technical consultation via its Developer Advisory Board. The DAB includes expert developers drawn from core teams and the wider Ethereum ecosystem. While the DAB does not vote, it plays a crucial role in reviewing governance proposals, publishing technical assessments, and issuing advisory memos that help delegates understand trade-offs and feasibility.
The DAB operates with defined workflows, internal consensus procedures, and compensation. Their input has become a valuable source of clarity, especially for complex protocol upgrades. Most importantly, the DAB reduces the knowledge gap between highly technical proposals and generalist governance participants.
and the proposed enhancements in 4.1.1.2. A Scalable Alternative: Embedding Responsibilities in Aligned Entities:
Arbitrum can draw inspiration from Optimism’s DAB without replicating its structure directly. Rather than introducing a standalone advisory board, Arbitrum can embed expert consultation responsibilities into its existing Aligned Entities (AAEs). These entities are already operational and aligned with the DAO’s strategic priorities, making them well-suited to support proposal assessment.
Each AAE should designate team members capable of reviewing proposals that intersect with their domain. For example, protocol development teams can evaluate smart contract changes or infrastructure upgrades, while ecosystem strategy entities might assess ecosystem alignment or implementation feasibility.
The core responsibilities of each participating AAE should include:
- Technical Evaluation: Structured analysis of proposals involving smart contracts, protocol upgrades, or validator operations. Reviews should consider design integrity, backward compatibility, maintainability, and risk exposure.
- Advisory Memos: Each review should result in a clearly written memo or briefing summarising feasibility, risks, and trade-offs. These should be accessible to non-technical delegates.
- Author Guidance: AAEs should assist authors, especially external contributors, with technical preparation, review timelines, and design alignment before proposals move to formal governance.
- Milestone Oversight: For proposals with deliverables, OpCo or an AAE can track milestones and provide updates to OpCo and relevant oversight bodies to support funding decisions and ensure accountability
- Workshop Coordination and Documentation: AAEs, in collaboration with OpCo, should ensure that workshops supporting complex proposals are properly documented, use accessible formats, and follow consistent templates. These sessions should be aligned with governance timelines and designed to help non-technical delegates engage meaningfully.
Where the evaluating AAE is also the author or implementer of a proposal, OpCo should coordinate with neutral technical contributors or external experts to ensure that assessments remain independent and credible.
but it’s also noted that
This approach may require additional manpower, and its feasibility at this stage remains uncertain
can the proposed AAEs please let us know if this is feasible now? If not, what would it take for each AAE to get to a spot where it could handle this kind of responsibility, and what kind of timeline might we expect to get there if the DAO wanted to implement this kind of framework?
While the other suggestions like workshops, metadata, and an archive would definitely be helpful, we think being able to have trusted experts to help interpret proposals has the biggest impact on delegates decision making. Workshops would be the second most effective, but having more flexible access to subject matter experts is always the best. From the ratings, looks like ZKSync or Optimism might be something to emulate here, for both options.
not sure who the best tags are here but think some info from @Entropy and @Arbitrum might be a good place to start.