# Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Created:** [August 20, 2024, 10:50pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441 "2024-08-20T22:50:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![AlexLumley](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/alexlumley/32/3790_2.png) [@AlexLumley](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AlexLumley)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2024, 7:08pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/82 "2024-10-02T19:08:31Z")
**Vote:** FOR **Type and Proposal Link** [Snapshot - Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x66812a5c91fe5f590965148c76f1ca609fdc5ded722544673c275a3b2ed94549) **Voting Rationale Link:** [Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #15 by AlexLumley](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/15) === COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: === The Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee has demonstrated considerable success in Phase I, establishing important procurement frameworks and infrastructure. However, while we support extending their tenure, we acknowledge that the proposal could benefit from a clearer budget breakdown, especially in terms of how funds will be allocated across different initiatives. In future phases, it would also be beneficial to engage the community earlier on re-election processes, ensuring a smooth transition and avoiding unnecessary centralization concerns. Addressing these key points would enhance both transparency and alignment with the DAO’s long-term objectives. Finally, I believe a great direction for ADPC is to head towards building a market place for builders that really shows builders: Arbitrum is the best place to build your business. Focusing on the builder stakeholders and getting a good enough marketplace first, would add more value than going vertical by vertical. ---
**Author:** ![Tekr0x.eth](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tekr0x.eth/32/2289_2.png) [@Tekr0x.eth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tekr0x.eth)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2024, 7:10am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/83 "2024-10-07T07:10:26Z")
Voted For: After reviewing the proposal and feedback from fellow delegates I believe that Arbtirum DAO will benefit from this proposal being approved. Feedback regarding the election is a bit unclear to me, so I expect that the committee will be fully transparent about all future activities and will take our feedback into consideration. But I don’t think this is such a blocker that we need another rewrite of the proposal. I believe that the committee will take our feedback and improve without a new proposal. ---
**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2024, 5:38pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/84 "2024-10-08T17:38:53Z")
I voted FOR on Tally, but my comments still remain true: we should have a proper structure to keep the knowledge within the DAO for if/when service providers change, the work can proceed without a big disruption. ---
**Author:** ![Frisson](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/frisson/32/2288_2.png) [@Frisson](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Frisson)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 2:09pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/85 "2024-10-09T14:09:57Z")
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined below. I’m comfortable with the team’s approach of focusing on execution only for the events vertical to reduce scope. I still think it’s ambitious to tackle two verticals at once, but am willing to let it play out and observe the results. I’m fine with the re-election of the current ARDC members, as I think continuity will benefit execution. > [@Frisson](#): > > I appreciate the ADPC’s work during the pilot phase to set up a procurement framework, benchmark security providers, and pass a proposal to fund a security subsidy. > > Overall, I think the amount of work proposed in Phase II is ambitious. My instinct is to recommend that we reduce the scope of Work Package 1 by focusing on only the RPC vertical. That way, the team will have more capacity to execute well on Work Packages 2-4. I think we can execute on the event vertical in Phase III. > > I plan to spend more time with this proposal to provide additional feedback in the future. ---
**Author:** ![krst](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/krst/32/1357_2.png) [@krst](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/krst)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 7:29pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/86 "2024-10-09T19:29:37Z")
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two. We’re voting AGAINST the proposal, just like we did during temp-check, and for the same reasons outlined in [our previous comment](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/62) as we don’t feel that our concerns had been addressed and mitigated. > [@Bernard](#): > > We value your perspective and we understand that you’re currently against this proposal, and will closely take your inputs into account when moving this forward. As promised, we’ll connect you with builders who have expressed an interest in the procurement of RPC services, so they can share their insights on the value they see in it. Re. the OpEx budget, we are taking your feedback into account as we design how to make it operational. We’d like to point out that unfortunately this did not happen and we remain skeptical about the usefulness and effectiveness of this procurement processes. Moreover, even in the budget breakdown the OpEx budget (WP3) remains a single vague line with costs being somehow spread out across WP1 tasks. We are still not convinced by the budget breakdown and the tasks listed there. While we appreciate and respect the work the ADPC team has done so far, we don’t see enough justification to allocate this amount of funding to continue this initiative. ---
**Author:** ![PennBlockchain](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pennblockchain/32/2030_2.png) [@PennBlockchain](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/PennBlockchain)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 5:53am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/87 "2024-10-10T05:53:58Z")
We voted **FOR** the Procurement Committee Phase II on Tally. We’re looking forward to the outcomes of all 4 work packages and believe that Axis, Areta, and Daimon will do a good job. We hope to see regular reports to ensure accountability. ---
**Author:** ![WinVerse](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/winverse/32/10523_2.png) [@WinVerse](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/WinVerse)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 10:43am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/88 "2024-10-10T10:43:16Z")
DAOplomats is voting in favor on Tally. We [supported this proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/59) during temp check and maintaining that stance. ---
**Author:** ![bee926](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/bee926/32/12795_2.png) [@bee926](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/bee926)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 6:35pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/89 "2024-10-10T18:35:32Z")
gTrade supports the proposal to extend the ADPC’s tenure into Phase II. The ADPC has established a much-needed procurement framework, bringing both structure and efficiency to the ecosystem. While there may be concerns about the lack of elections, it’s important to consider the time required to effectively onboard new members. From an efficiency standpoint, allowing the current team to continue into the next phase is a resource-optimized approach. The Arbitrum DAO can then evaluate their performance at the conclusion of Phase II. ---
**Author:** ![Tane](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tane/32/3187_2.png) [@Tane](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tane)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2024, 1:07am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/90 "2024-10-11T01:07:59Z")
We vote **FOR** the proposal on Tally. We maintain [our decision](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/53) made at its Snapshot voting phase and appreciate the additional information added to the proposal. We also appreciate the future effort to make sure that there will be elections before the next phase of the committee with potential collaborations with Entropy and/or other suitable entities. ---
**Author:** ![ocandocrypto](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ocandocrypto/32/5015_2.png) [@ocandocrypto](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/ocandocrypto)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2024, 2:29am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/91 "2024-10-11T02:29:59Z")
Hard one. I appreciate the changes in the proposal, as well as the feedback from the Snapshot proposal. I highly value the structure and thoroughness of the ADPC reports. Helped a lot while we were planning onboarding working group problems to solved, for example. It’s clear that with the current quorum, the proposal will pass, but I genuinely wish we had a better cost-benefit ratio for the expenses. Even though, okay, the next phase will come with re-elections, I feel like lately, the DAO is just saying yes to everything, voting, distributing funds, and we’re not demanding results in return, raising the bar, or seeking more clarity in the process. Especially with this project that’s involved in security and procurement. Even though I voted yes on Snapshot, **this time I voted Against in Tally** ---
**Author:** ![chamadao](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/chamadao/32/12746_2.png) [@chamadao](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chamadao)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2024, 6:59am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/92 "2024-10-11T06:59:27Z")
We will vote FOR. While additional spending is not desired, some way to manage the DAO spending is needed, and this seems to be the only current way proposed. We will monitor the success of this initiative to see if it can meaningfully reduce DAO spending. ---
**Author:** ![maxlomu](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/maxlomu/32/1282_2.png) [@maxlomu](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/maxlomu)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2024, 8:08am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/93 "2024-10-11T08:08:35Z")
GM, I voted **ABSTAIN** on this proposal. While I appreciate the ADPC’s efforts and support the continuation of their work, including the structure and processes they’ve established, I believe the analysis provided for selecting RPCs as the vertical was insufficient to justify the decision. As I mentioned privately, there was no visible quantitative analysis of potential cost savings—only a high-level indication of whether they were “high” or “low.” This would have made way easier to justify the selection. I apologize for not engaging in a more extensive discussion before the vote. ---
**Author:** ![snowdot](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/snowdot/32/8991_2.png) [@snowdot](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/snowdot)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2024, 12:32pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/94 "2024-10-11T12:32:32Z")
The results are in for the **[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal** on-chain proposal. See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: > **[\# \[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal](https://dhive.io/proposal/1384)** > > Explore # \[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal proposal, results, votes, and analytics ---
**Author:** ![sid\_areta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/sid_areta/32/8750_2.png) [@sid\_areta](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/sid_areta)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2024, 1:09pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/95 "2024-10-14T13:09:06Z")
Post the passing of the Tally vote for Phase II of the ADPC, we wanted to thank the community for your trust in the ADPC and all the great feedback and deep engagement thus far! In this second phase, we will focus on the key initiatives highlighted in our work packages above, including: - Procuring RPC providers to strengthen the Arbitrum ecosystem; - Providing the procurement services for events identified within the DAO Events Budget for 2025; - Continued management of the Subsidy Fund for Security Services; - Definition and creation of an Operational Expense (OpEx) budget for the Arbitrum DAO; - Creating a Phase II Outcome Report, similar to the one we have [published](https://docsend.com/view/b25g3iu6feppm7as) for Phase I. In terms of regular updates and engagement with the community, we aim to: - Provide a weekly update on our progress through a weekly ADPC Update Thread; - Hold [bi-weekly calls](https://www.notion.so/Phase-II-Proposal-Forum-Responses-7165b81d4c264db5bb6bf209ed303c88?pvs=21) with the DAO, as on the DAO governance calendar, on every second Thursday at 16.00 CET; - Provide monthly updates via the Governance Reporting Call. We’re extremely excited to carry on with our efforts to pioneer decentralized procurement processes in this phase and supporting the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem through effective procurement strategies. ---
**Author:** ![olimpio](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/olimpio/32/11_2.png) [@olimpio](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/olimpio)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2024, 3:15am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/96 "2024-11-01T03:15:46Z")
I voted for this proposal in Tally, for the same reasons I did in [Snapshot](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/71); past work by the ADPC had a positive impact. However, some concerns raised above are valid. Will keep tabs on reports and progress. ---
**Author:** ![AlexLumley](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/alexlumley/32/3790_2.png) [@AlexLumley](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AlexLumley)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2024, 4:05am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/97 "2024-11-01T04:05:07Z")
Voted FOR: Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined in my previous commenting rationale. > [@Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441/82): > > Vote: FOR Type and Proposal Link [Snapshot - Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x66812a5c91fe5f590965148c76f1ca609fdc5ded722544673c275a3b2ed94549) Voting Rationale Link: [Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #15 by AlexLumley](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/15) === COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: === The Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee has demonstrated considerable success in Phase I, establishing important procurement frameworks and infrastructure. However, while we support extending their tenure, we acknowledge that the proposal could benefit from a clearer budget brea… I believe in the teams’ ability to continue to develop and iterate. I also believe in the grander vision of a market place for builders. **Voting Rationale Link:** [Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #33 by AlexLumley](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/33) [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-procurement-committee-phase-ii-proposal/26441.md?page=4)