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.
First off, we want to thank the ADPC both for its tenure over the past 6 months and for the effort put into creating this proposal. We appreciate their work, and we carefully considered our decision before voting.
There are 3 distinct reasons why we’ve decided to vote against the proposal:
- When it comes to work package one and the procurement of service provides for the two verticals outlined in the proposal, we’re not sure to what end we’ll be procuring these SPs for. There is currently no way for the DAO to utilize and engage with service providers in a way that would make procurement meaningful.
- Regarding work package 2 and the administration of the subsidy fund, we were under the assumption that the ADPC would administer the fund within the scope of its first term — which is also why we were supportive of ADPC managing the subsidy fund instead of setting up a separate committee for it. We’re supportive of this part of the proposal, but we believe it should be a standalone proposal specifically for the management of the subsidy fund.
- Lastly, while the creation of an OpEx budget could help the DAO better define and manage its finances, similar to work package one, there’s currently no way for the DAO to use such a budget. Unless we figure out the other part of the equation, which is who is responsible for managing the OpEx budget and who is responsible for keeping the service providers that are paid through the OpEx budget accountable, then we do not see the reason to proceed.
We believe the work proposed is valuable, but it comes at a time when there’s no fertile ground in the DAO for it to work. We’d suggest a separate proposal is created for managing the security services subsidy fund and for the other work packages to be revisited down the line.